送交者: Latino2 于 2005-4-07, 09:08:39:
回答: 卫生部“苏丹红报告” 由 claudius 于 2005-4-07, 06:44:24:
谁也不拿‘老干妈’当饭吃。
========================
.......
"Negligible risk"
But little scientific data has been published on the health effects of the dye, which has been used in shoe and floor polishes, waxes and petrol, for decades. There is no direct evidence for a link to cancer in humans.
"The risk to humans, if it is indeed a human carcinogen, is negligible on the basis of [expected] dose and exposure," says Alan Boobis, a toxicologist at Imperial College, London, UK.
However, the FSA's decision to call back the food products is "on balance a reasonable precaution", he believes. This is because there is no record of who is exposed and by how much, he says. Alerting the public could stop young children being exposed, or protect people from inadvertently filling their freezers with contaminated ready meals.
DNA mutations
Boobis describes one study where rats were given 30 milligrams of the dye per kilogram of body weight - every day over two years - and developed cancerous
changes in their livers. But this effect was not seen in a similar experiment in mice.
These studies were published in 1982. No work has been done on people. However, more recent short term studies have examined Sudan I's effects on animal
and human DNA and found a mutagenic result.
"The dye undergoes a transformation to a very unstable product which attaches to the nucleic acid bases - the backbone of DNA," explains Boobis.
This can cause mutations in the DNA which can then be passed on to future generations of tissue cells when the cell divides and the DNA is duplicated. Other changes are needed to render a cell cancerous, but this DNA reaction is a first step.
Under the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC's)'s guidelines, Sudan I is deemed unclassifiable as a carcinogen. "It doesn't mean it's a non-carcinogen, but at the same time there's not enough evidence" to say
that it is, says Vincent Cogliano, head of IARC's Monographs series of books, which evaluate chemicals as carcinogens, in Paris, France.
But he cautions that the IARC has not evaluated Sudan I for 30 years. "The data is really inadequate to draw any conclusions," he told New Scientist.
Source: New Scientist