| Literature DB >> 31569435 |
Alexandre Lee1, Laetitia Beaubernard2, Valérie Lamothe3, Catherine Bennetau-Pelissero4,5.
Abstract
The study relates the present evaluation of exposure to estrogenic isoflavones of French consumers through two approaches: (1) identification of the isoflavone sources in the French food offering, (2) a consumption-survey on premenopausal women. For the foodstuff approach 150 food-items were analysed for genistein and daidzein. Additionally, 12,707 labels of processed-foods from French supermarket websites and a restaurant-supplier website were screened, and 1616 foodstuffs of interest were retained. The sources of phytoestrogens considered were soy, pea, broad bean and lupine. A price analysis was performed. A total of 270 premenopausal women from the French metropolitan territory were interviewed for their global diet habits and soy consumption and perception. In supermarkets, there were significantly less selected foodstuffs containing soy than in restaurant (11.76% vs. 25.71%, p < 0.01). There was significantly more soy in low price-foodstuff in supermarket (p < 0.01). Isoflavone levels ranged from 81 to 123,871 µg per portion of the analyzed soy containing foodstuff. Among the women inquired 46.3% claimed to have soy regularly. Isoflavone intake >45 mg/day is associated to vegan-diet (p < 0.01). In total, 11.9% of soy-consumers had a calculated isoflavone intake >50 mg/day. This dose can lengthen the menstrual cycles. The actual exposure to phytoestrogen is likely to have an effect in a part of the French population.Entities:
Keywords: endocrine disruptors; exposure; foodstuff labelling; health; isoflavones; legumes; phytoestrogens; premenopausal women
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31569435 PMCID: PMC6835759 DOI: 10.3390/nu11102308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Diagrammatic representation of the food-item sorting considered in the different studies. (1A) Sorting applied to the global study of supermarkets and of the restaurant-supplier offerings. (1B) Sorting applied to the comparison between the two distribution circuits.
Repartition of the pulses of interest in selected foodstuff categories from supermarkets.
| Food Categories | Number of Foodstuffs | Total of Indexed Foodstuff | Products Claiming Containing Pulse | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soy | Pea | Lupine | Broad Bean | Suspects | Traces | |||
| 1. Bread | 11 | - | - | 37 | 3 | 1 | 52 | 48 |
| 2. Breaded meat or fish | 12 | 14 | - | - | 3 | - | 29 | 26 |
| 3. Battered-meat and Nuggets | 5 | 10 | - | - | 6 | - | 23 | 15 |
| 4. Cooking aids and sauces | 22 | - | - | 1 | 9 | - | 32 | 23 |
| 5. Delicatessen | 11 | 10 | - | - | 2 | - | 26 | 21 |
| 6. Gluten-free products | 13 | 6 | 3 | - | 3 | - | 27 | 22 |
| 7. Ice-cream and desserts | 7 | 3 | - | - | 6 | - | 16 | 10 |
| 8. Legumes in cans | 0 | 33 | 4 | - | - | - | 54 | 37 |
| 9. Minced meat fresh or frozen | 52 | 7 | - | - | 5 | - | 65 | 59 |
| 10. Processed foods in can | 13 | 12 | 1 | - | - | - | 26 | 26 |
| 11. Processed dishes | 23 | 18 | - | 1 | 15 | - | 57 | 42 |
| 12. Soy based products | 138 | - | - | - | - | - | 138 | 138 |
| 13. Snacks | 12 | 9 | - | 1 | 10 | - | 32 | 22 |
| 14. Surimi | 4 | - | - | - | 2 | - | 6 | 4 |
| Total | 323 | 122 | 8 | 40 | 64 | 1 | 583 | 493 |
Comparison between the offers of the processed food claiming to contain pulses in the two distribution circuits.
| Product Category | Supermarkets | Restaurants | Significance Products with Legumes vs. no Legumes | Significance Products with Soy vs. no Soy | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Products per Category | Products with Legumes or Suspect | % with Legumes or Suspect | Products with Soy | % with Soy | Products per Category | Products with Legumes or Suspect | % with Legumes or Suspect | Products with Soy | % with Soy | |||
| 1. Breaded and Battered fish | 14 | 1 | 7% | 0 | 0% | 109 | 45 | 41% | 10 | 9% |
|
|
| 2. Breaded meat fresh or frozen | 18 | 15 | 83% | 4 | 22% | 28 | 20 | 71% | 12 | 43% |
|
|
| 3. Burgers fresh or frozen | 7 | 4 | 57% | 2 | 29% | 7 | 7 | 100% | 7 | 100% |
|
|
| 4. Delicatessen | 49 | 9 | 18% | 0 | 0% | 139 | 29 | 21% | 19 | 14% |
|
|
| 6. Meatballs fresh or frozen | 10 | 10 | 100% | 5 | 50% | 16 | 16 | 100% | 16 | 100% |
|
|
| 7. Nuggets fresh or frozen | 24 | 19 | 19% | 2 | 8% | 14 | 13 | 93% | 7 | 50% |
|
|
| 8. Stuffed vegetables fresh or frozen | 5 | 4 | 80% | 3 | 60% | 22 | 22 | 100% | 17 | 77% |
|
|
| 9. Surimi * | 43 | 7 | 16% | 4 | 9% | 19 | 6 | 32% | 3 | 16% |
| |
| Total number of products (%) | 170 | 69 | 41% | 20 | 11.76% | 354 | 158 | 45% | 91 | 25.71% |
| |
na: not applicable, ns: not significant, * Surimi from different supermarkets to cover the entire offer.
Price analysis per foodstuff categories.
| Price-Quintiles for All Product Categories* | Pea | Soy | Plant Protein + Suspect | Total Legumes | No Legumes | Total | Significance Legume vs. no Legumes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price 1 | 7 (15%) | 11 (23%) | 4 (9%) | 22 (48%) | 24 (52%) | 46 |
|
| Price 2 | 14 (27%) | 10 (19%) | 3 (6%) | 27 (51%) | 26 (49%) | 53 | |
| Price 3 | 6 (12%) | 1 (2%) | 4 (8%) | 11 (23%) | 37 (77%) | 48 | |
| Price 4 | 6 (13%) | 2 (4.3%) | 6 (13%) | 14 (32%) | 30 (68%) | 44 | |
| Price 5 | 1 (4%) | 3 (12%) | 4 (16%) | 8 (32%) | 17 (68%) | 25 | |
| Price 1 + 2 | 21 (14%) | 21 (14%) | 7 (5%) | 49 (33%) | 50 (34%) | 99 | |
| Price 3 + 4 + 5 | 13 (9%) | 6 (4%) | 14 (9%) | 33 (22%) | 84 (56%) | 117 | |
|
| |||||||
| Number by category | 34 | 27 | 21 | 82 | 134 | 216 | |
| Price 1 + 2 | 21 (62%) | 21 (78%) | 7 (33%) | 49 (60%) | 50 (37%) | 99 | |
| Price 3 + 4 + 5 | 13 (38%) | 6 (22%) | 14 (67%) | 33 (40%) | 84 (63%) | 117 |
* The quintiles are given in Table S6, na: not analysed.
Figure 2Percentage of food-items containing legumes in the different food-categories proposed by the restaurant-supplier. Figures indicate the number of food-items and, between brackets, are the numbers of total food-products found within the restaurant-supplier offering.
Distribution of isoflavone exposure in French premenopausal women through a casual diet containing soy as an ingredient.
| Classes of Isoflavone Exposure | Number of Subjects | Confidence Intervals |
|---|---|---|
| < 0.5 mg /day | 84 | 25.6% < 31.1 < 36.6% |
| (0.5–1) mg/day | 48 | 13.2% < 17.8 < 22.3% |
| (1–2) mg/day | 37 | 9.6% < 13.7 < 17.8% |
| (2–3) mg/day | 31 | 7.7% < 11.5 < 15.3% |
| (3–5) mg/day | 42 | 11.2% < 15.6 < 19.9% |
| (5–8) mg/day | 21 | 4.6% < 7.8 < 11.0% |
| ≥ 8 mg/day | 7 | 0.7% < 2.6 < 4.5% |
| TOTAL | 270 |
Figure 3Main results of the survey performed on 270 premenopausal French women on their soy consumption. (A) Percentage of premenopausal women consuming soy-based products or not. (B) Duration of soy-based product consumption over women claiming regular soy intake. (C) Frequency of soy intake from all the inquired population (N = 270). (D) Estimated isoflavone intake based on the isoflavone foodstuff estimation (Table S10a). Data are percentages and error bars are confidence intervals calculated with a risk error of 5%.
Repartition of consumers that have isoflavone intake below and over 45mg/day.
| Isoflavone Consumption | <45 mg/day | ≥45 mg/day | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apart from you who consume soy at yours? | |||
| Nobody | 43 (43%) | 18 (47%) | 61 |
| My husband | 25 (25%) | 9 (24%) | 34 |
| My child below 3 years-old | 1 (1%) | 1 (2.6%) | 2 |
| My child over 3 years-old | 4 (4%) | 2 (5.3%) | 6 |
| My adolescent | 9 (9%) | 4 (10.5%) | 13 |
| Others | 18 (18%) | 4 (10.5%) | 22 |
| Total | 100 (100%) | 38 (100%) | 138 |