Longitudinal Food Consumption Frequency Determination and Its Implication for Dietary Pesticide Exposure and Risk Assessment
Chensheng Lu,Anne Riederer,Melanie Pearson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000392126.88105.f5
2011-01-01
Epidemiology
Abstract:O-31B4-2 Background/Aims: Dietary pesticide exposure assessments typically rely on national nutrition surveys or similar large-scale studies for empirical data to describe population-level variability in consumption. Methods: We used the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the longitudinal Children's Pesticide Exposure Study (CPES) and Metro Atlanta Cohort (MAC) to illustrate the magnitude of potential error introduced by using national-scale, cross-sectional data to estimate consumption frequencies for smaller cohorts. We focused on foods commonly eaten by US adults (age, 18–60), children (age, 3–11), and items likely to contain pesticide residues. We defined “percent eaters” as the percent of study participants who reported eating a particular food in a 24-hour period. We calculated percent eaters for each sampling day for the CPES and MAC participants, and compared these to the computed weighted percent eaters and 95% confidence limits for children and adults, using the NHANES 24-hour dietary recall data. Results: In general, across all sampling days, a greater proportion of adult participants reported eating common and seasonal food items, such as banana, broccoli, grapes, lettuce, peach, pear, peas, strawberries, string beans, and tomatoes than the national estimate, while the proportion of non-seasonal food, such as apple was similar. For certain foods, particularly the seasonally available produce, such as apples, peaches/nectarines, melon, grapes, pears, strawberries, the CPES percent eaters fell outside the NHANES 95% confidence limits on many sampling days. Conclusion: The data illustrate how a higher proportion of adults and children may eat certain foods than the national average depending on season or other factors. Although the differences we observed for certain foods may be due in part to measurement error, they also likely reflect seasonal and geographic patterns among the CPES data that the public release NHANES data do not capture. An exposure assessment that ignored this difference could underestimate dietary pesticide intakes.