4.7 Editorial Material

Estimates of the 2015 global and regional disease burden from four foodborne metals - arsenic, cadmium, lead and methylmercury

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 174, 期 -, 页码 188-194

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.12.062

关键词

Foodborne burden of disease; Arsenic; Cadmium; Lead; Methylmercury

资金

  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture
  3. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  4. government of Japan
  5. government of Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of foodborne metals on the burden of disease has been largely overlooked, in comparison to the attention on acute diseases associated with infectious foodborne agents. Four articles in this special section describe in detail the burden of disease from foodbome lead, methylmercury, arsenic, and cadmium. Ingested lead and methylmercury are causally associated with lifelong intellectual disability. Long term ingestion of arsenic is causally associated with an increased risk of cancer. Long term ingestion of cadmium is causally associated with an increased risk of late stage chronic kidney disease. This article presents an overview of the burden of disease from these four foodborne metals and discusses them in the context of the World Health Organization's initiative to estimate the global burden of foodborne disease. The results indicate that in 2015, ingestion of arsenic, methylmercury, lead, and cadmium resulted in more than 1 million illnesses, over 56,000 deaths, and more than 9 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) worldwide. The greatest impact on DALYs was in the Western Pacific B subregion. All of the metals were found to have high DALYs per case in comparison with other foodborne disease agents, including infectious and parasitic agents. In addition, lead, arsenic, and methylmercury were found to have high DALYs per 100,000 population in comparison to other foodborne disease agents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据