4.7 Review

Carcinogenic compounds in alcoholic beverages: an update

Journal

ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY
Volume 90, Issue 10, Pages 2349-2367

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00204-016-1770-3

Keywords

Alcoholic beverages; Risk assessment; Cancer risk; Ethanol; Acetaldehyde; Lead

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The consumption of alcoholic beverages has been classified as carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 1988. More recently, in 2010, ethanol as the major constituent of alcoholic beverages and its metabolite acetaldehyde were also classified as carcinogenic to humans. Alcoholic beverages as multi-component mixtures may additionally contain further known or suspected human carcinogens as constituent or contaminant. This review will discuss the occurrence and toxicology of eighteen carcinogenic compounds (acetaldehyde, acrylamide, aflatoxins, arsenic, benzene, cadmium, ethanol, ethyl carbamate, formaldehyde, furan, glyphosate, lead, 3-MCPD, 4-methylimidazole, N-nitrosodimethylamine, pulegone, ochratoxin A, safrole) occurring in alcoholic beverages as identified based on monograph reviews by the IARC. For most of the compounds of alcoholic beverages, quantitative risk assessment provided evidence for only a very low risk (such as margins of exposure above 10,000). The highest risk was found for ethanol, which may reach exposures in ranges known to increase the cancer risk even at moderate drinking (margin of exposure around 1). Other constituents that could pose a risk to the drinker were inorganic lead, arsenic, acetaldehyde, cadmium and ethyl carbamate, for most of which mitigation by good manufacturing practices is possible. Nevertheless, due to the major effect of ethanol, the cancer burden due to alcohol consumption can only be reduced by reducing alcohol consumption in general or by lowering the alcoholic strength of beverages.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available