Updated data synthesis estimates global disease burden from nine foodborne chemicals, revealing significant health impacts across regions.
Background We updated WHO estimates of the global, regional, and national foodborne disease burden caused by chemical hazards. We estimated incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) of aflatoxins B1 and M1, inorganic arsenic, lead, methylmercury, cadmium, dioxin, peanut allergy, and cassava cyanide for 2000–21. Methods We used data from systematic reviews, established dose-response relationships, the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021, and, where applicable, a structured expert judgment study. We used disease-specific models and a hierarchical meta-regression model with geographical clustering and global linear time trend with uncertainty propagation. Findings In 2021, the nine foodborne chemicals caused 6·26 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·36–10·30) cases, 1·12 million (0·40–2·10) deaths, and 29·8 million (12·9–53·1) DALYs globally. Inorganic arsenic and lead caused the highest burden. Cardiovascular diseases due to inorganic arsenic and lead caused 88·9% of foodborne chemical deaths and 76·5% of foodborne chemical DALYs. The greatest DALY rate was estimated for the South-East Asia region, with 789 DALYs (272–1660) per 100 000 people mostly due to inorganic arsenic and lead (94·2%). The region of the Americas carried the highest foodborne chemical DALY rate in children younger than 5 years, with 749 DALYs (435–1260) per 100 000 children, mainly due to the effect of methylmercury on intellectual disability (91·0%). DALY rates from dioxin showed the steepest decrease from 2000 to 2021. Interpretation Dietary exposure to chemicals causes a substantial global disease burden. An integrated response with ongoing non-communicable disease prevention efforts is key. Granular assessment including subnational exposure contexts is essential to ensure equity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jakobsen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: