Abstracts: ISEE 22nd Annual Conference, Seoul, Korea, 28 August-1 September 2010: Exposure Assessment by Various Media and Pathways
1The LifeLine Group, Annandale, VA; 2The LifeLine Group, Mt. Washington, MD; and 3The LifeLine Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstracts published in Epidemiology have been reviewed by the societies at whose meetings the abstracts have been accepted for presentation. These abstracts have not undergone review by the Editorial Board of Epidemiology.
United States national dietary surveys once served as the only knowledgebase for aggregate exposure and risk assessment models such as LifeLine, SHEDS, CARES, and DEEM. National surveys (Food and Drug administration's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and US Department of Agriculture Continuing Survey's of Food Intakes by Individuals) were statistically designed to represent large regions of the continental United States, 4 socioeconomic groups and broad-ethnic groupings. They are not representative of diets in Tribal, Arctic, Mexican, Asian, rural hunter, religious/ethnic-oriented, medical/weight control, or variants of vegan/vegetarians.
Dietary patterns for any unique subpopulation can be constructed using atypical information from traditional knowledge, economic and retail data, harvest and food disappearance data, and so on. On the basis of 3 principles of menu selection and using probabilistic methods, dietary patterns have been created for Mexican-influenced US communities, 5 Alaskan community types, and 15 Canadian Arctic regions and Southwestern US Tribal groups. These dietary intake patterns were applied to dietary exposure assessments despite the large national dietary surveys.
Exposure opportunity differences are significant among these unique communities, especially for food oils, proteins, and fruits/vegetables and translate to significant differences in risk to pesticides and environmental contaminants. High risks to Mexican/SW Tribal populations originate from very different chemical exposure patterns than high exposure scenarios for populations eating Arctic-type diets.
Previously, these differences were invisible, but now are viewable using this methodology. These techniques can be applied to climate change issues, exposure assessment for any population or community for which no formal dietary survey exists, updating old dietary surveys for use in exposure assessment, Brownfields and superfund dietary assessments, environmental impact assessments, water and pesticide safety assessments, and so on. This presentation shows the construction of the dietary patterns using 3 basic principles; 5 very different patterns in the United States and Canada not considered in national surveys; and differences in oil, meat, processed sweet (commercial), and vegetable consumption across age groups.
© 2011 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.