front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |27 |28 |29 |30 |review

The consideration presented in the last slide suggested that if both Codex and U.S. EPA were to use the same RfD or ADI value in deriving a MRL (for the same health risk prevention purpose), then the fat-based MRL derived by Codex should be about 7 times lower than U.S. EPA’s estimate. Here such a reduction is deemed appropriate in that the higher fat intake assumed in the Codex diet should be accounted for. If U.S. EPA’s default fish diet is lowered to 17.5 g/day, as for recreational fishers, then the tolerance limits used by the two agencies could even be further apart, up to an additional 8-fold (i.e., up to 142.4 g/17.5 g -fold, again under the presumption that the fishers would not additionally consume the 50 g of fat included in the Codex diet).