Effect of technological treatments on digestibility and allergenicity of meat-based baby foods.

OBJECTIVE: When suitability prepared according to particular characteristics of hygiene and digestibility, meat is an important food for human weaning. The present knowledge on meat digestibility and allergenicity are not enough to justify removal of meat from a child's diet when there is risk but no clinical evidence of allergy. Based on these considerations, the role of technological treatments on digestibility and allergenicity of meat-based baby foods is considered. SUBJECTS: Eight children (five males and three females) suffering from atopic dermatitis (AD), aged 3.8 to 7.1 years (mean age 4.86 +/- 1.10 years). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: An in vitro multienzymatic digestibility assay was used to evaluate proteolysis in meat samples (from four different animal species). The experimental design included raw, steam-cooked (home-made and industrial cooking), homogenized (strained) and freeze-dried meat samples. Skin prick test (SPT) was performed to evaluate positive responses to meat samples (raw, cooked, strained and freeze-dried) from four animal species. RESULTS: Our data indicate that enzymatic attack is strongly affected by heat treatment as shown in steam-cooked meat samples. On the other hand, blending, homogenization and freeze-drying processes are able to partially reverse the phenomenon. Data on modification of sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel rlectrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) protein pattern during the multienzymatic assay are reported. Cooking and technological treatments reduce positive responses obtained in SPT. CONCLUSIONS: Technological treatments improve digestibility and reduce antigenicity of meat products.

Meat allergy: I--Specific IgE to BSA and OSA in atopic, beef sensitive children.

OBJECTIVE: The use of lamb meat products has been suggested as an alternative diet for polyallergic children, although until now this clinical practice has not been supported by in-depth biochemical/immunological studies. The aims of this research were: to evaluate cross-reactivity between lamb and beef; to evaluate the role of BSA and OSA as allergens in beef allergic children; and to evaluate cross-reactivity between BSA and OSA. METHODS: 16 children suffering from atopic dermatitis (AD), aged 12 months-8 8 years (mean age 2.61 +/- 1.93 years) were found skin prick test (SPT)--positive to bovine meat; all of them were also SPT-positive to ovine meat and to milk. After a period of restricted diet, the selected 16 children were recalled; 12 AD-free children (8 males and 14 females, aged 12 months-4.33 years (mean age 2.21 +/- 1.05 years) were evaluated by SPT and radioallergosorbent test (RAST) for the following allergens: bovine meat, ovine meat, BSA 1 mg/ml, OSA 1 mg/ml. Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) with bovine serum albumin (BSA) and ovine serum albumin (OSA) were performed. For SPT, the results were expressed in mm of wheal, and 3 mm was considered as the end point; correlation between wheal diameters was calculated by Spearman rank test. For DBPCFC, according to the Sampson's experimental procedure, BSA and OSA were given in pear juice (the dermal negative response to the pear juice was verified by fresh food SPT before starting the oral challenge test). The total dose administered to the children corresponded to the amount of albumin present in 180 g of calf or lamb meat (90 and 63 mg respectively, as calculated by Sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SPS-PAGE). The administration of pear juice (containing placebo or albumin) and symptom evaluation were entrusted to medical people who did not know what the child received. RESULTS: All children tested SPT positive to bovine and ovine meat, and to BSA and OSA. Significant correlations were observed between the following diameters of wheal: BSA vs OSA (R = 0.846, p < 0.0001); ovine meat vs OSA (R = 0.769, p < 0.005); b.meat vs o.meat (R = 0.771, p < 0.005); and ovine meat vs BSA (R = 0.594, p < 0.043). In RAST, 6 of 12 children were positive to bovine meat, 3 to lamb meat, 4 to BSA and 3 to OSA. DBPCFC showed an immediate reaction to BSA or OSA in 2 and 3 children, respectively. One other child developed severe dyspnea, cough and asthma 3 hours after OSA challenge. CONCLUSIONS: BSA and OSA are important beef and lamb allergens; they share not only proteic sequences, but also allergenic properties. Clinical tolerance to BSA and OSA can be present in beef and lamb SPT-positive children.

Meat allergy: II--Effects of food processing and enzymatic digestion on the allergenicity of bovine and ovine meats.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate whether peptic treatment of BSA and OSA affects their allergenicity and to evaluate the effect of technological treatments of meat for infant feeding on the allergenicity of these proteins. SUBJECTS: Twelve children (8 males and 14 females) suffering from atopic dermatitis (AD), aged 12 months to 4.33 years (mean age 2.21 +/- 1.05 years). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Children suffering from atopic dermatitis (AD), (AD), clinically reactive and SPT-positive to beef, underwent skin prick testing (SPT) and radioallergosorbent test (RAST) with BSA and OSA, before and after peptic treatment. They were tested also with commercially available homogenized bovine meat (HBM) and with freeze-dried bovine (FDBM) and ovine (FDOM) meats. Peptic digestion of BSA and OSA was carried out in a Dubnoff's water bath containing 0.05 mg/ml of pepsin. SPT and RAST were performed for 1 mg/ml of BSA and OSA digested 5 minutes, 2 hours and 4 hours with pepsin; homogenized bovine meat, and FDBM and FDOM. SPT results were expressed as diameters (in mm) of the wheal obtained after SPT; a diameter > or = 3 mm was considered as positive. RAST was considered positive for IgE values 5 > UI/ml. RESULTS: SPT to native BSA and OSA were positive in all patients. Only 2 of the 12 children were SPT-positive to HBM, FDBM, and FDOM. After digestion, SPTs and were positive as follows: for BSA, 4/12 after 5 minutes peptic treatment, 2/12 after 2 hours and 2/12 after 4 hours; for OSA, 3/12 after 5 minutes peptic treatment, none after 2 and 4 hours. None of RASTs was positive after peptic attack. CONCLUSIONS: Both proteolytic digestion and technological treatment reduced the allergenic potential of meat products.

Formaldehyde and hexamethylenetetramine as food additives: chemical interactions and toxicology.

Formaldehyde (FA) and hexamethylenetetramine (HMT) are used in cheese production to control gas-forming clostridia; FA also occurs naturally in some foods at levels of 1-20 mg/kg. The toxicology of FA and HMT are briefly discussed together with their reaction in foods. The most abundant end-product of FA in cheese is spinacine derived from the N-terminal histidine residue in gamma 2-casein. Acute and short term toxicological studies on spinacine enable a No Observed Effect Level of 300 mg/kg body weight/day to be determined, leading to an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for man of 3 mg/kg body weight/day. From these data a Tolerance Level (TL) of 1800 mg spinacine/kg cheese can be derived, leading to a Safety Margin (SM) of 12.9. It is concluded that there is no appreciable health risk from consumption of cheese made using formaldehyde (Grana Padano) or hexamethylenetetramine (Provolone).