The relative nature of the standards for proof of safety: a review of FDA’s safety standards for various consumer products

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 TOXICOLOGY
George A. Burdock, Erik Hedrick
{"title":"The relative nature of the standards for proof of safety: a review of FDA’s safety standards for various consumer products","authors":"George A. Burdock,&nbsp;Erik Hedrick","doi":"10.1007/s00204-024-03816-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Are all food ingredients, dietary supplement ingredients and even foods, required to meet the same safety standards? Are they all equally safe? If so, then why do the various categories have different expressions describing their safety, such as “reasonable <i>certainty</i> of no harm” for food ingredients and “reasonable <i>expectation</i> of no harm” for dietary supplement ingredients? The basis for these different expressions is that they are not standards of safety, but <i>standards of proof</i> of safety. Just as in criminal vs. civil courts, the threshold for proving guilt or fault is different, so too are there differences between various categories of consumer products regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration. This manuscript describes the threshold requirements for each standard, as well as to the identity of the decision makers on what is safe, their credentials as decision makers and the databases mandated for their use.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8329,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-024-03816-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Are all food ingredients, dietary supplement ingredients and even foods, required to meet the same safety standards? Are they all equally safe? If so, then why do the various categories have different expressions describing their safety, such as “reasonable certainty of no harm” for food ingredients and “reasonable expectation of no harm” for dietary supplement ingredients? The basis for these different expressions is that they are not standards of safety, but standards of proof of safety. Just as in criminal vs. civil courts, the threshold for proving guilt or fault is different, so too are there differences between various categories of consumer products regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration. This manuscript describes the threshold requirements for each standard, as well as to the identity of the decision makers on what is safe, their credentials as decision makers and the databases mandated for their use.

Abstract Image

安全证明标准的相对性:食品和药物管理局对各种消费品安全标准的审查。
是否所有食品成分、膳食补充剂成分甚至食品都必须符合相同的安全标准?它们是否都同样安全?如果是,那么为什么不同的类别有不同的描述其安全性的表述,如食品成分的 "合理确定无害 "和膳食补充剂成分的 "合理预期无害"?这些不同表述的依据是,它们不是安全标准,而是证明安全的标准。正如在刑事法庭和民事法庭中,证明有罪或过错的阈值不同一样,美国食品药品管理局监管的各类消费品之间也存在差异。本手稿介绍了每种标准的阈值要求,以及决定什么是安全的决策者的身份、他们作为决策者的资质和规定使用的数据库。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Archives of Toxicology
Archives of Toxicology 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
4.90%
发文量
218
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Archives of Toxicology provides up-to-date information on the latest advances in toxicology. The journal places particular emphasis on studies relating to defined effects of chemicals and mechanisms of toxicity, including toxic activities at the molecular level, in humans and experimental animals. Coverage includes new insights into analysis and toxicokinetics and into forensic toxicology. Review articles of general interest to toxicologists are an additional important feature of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信