A comparison of the U.S. EPA FIFRA GLP standards with the U.S. FDA GLP standards for nonclinical laboratory studies.

K L Keatley
{"title":"A comparison of the U.S. EPA FIFRA GLP standards with the U.S. FDA GLP standards for nonclinical laboratory studies.","authors":"K L Keatley","doi":"10.1080/105294100750035125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the early 1980's both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration were receiving studies on the products that they regulate that were unscientifically sound, some even being fraudulent. Studies were being submitted that had not been done under sound scientific practice; data were missing; necessary documentation to reconstruct the study, also known as an audit trail, was not in place, it was this evidence that lead to the Good Laboratory Practice Standards (GLPs) being codified and becoming regulation. The GLPs were meant to assure that studies submitted to the agencies for the registration of products for which they were responsible would protect the environment, and, the safety and health of the public.</p>","PeriodicalId":77339,"journal":{"name":"Quality assurance (San Diego, Calif.)","volume":"7 3","pages":"147-54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/105294100750035125","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality assurance (San Diego, Calif.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/105294100750035125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

In the early 1980's both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration were receiving studies on the products that they regulate that were unscientifically sound, some even being fraudulent. Studies were being submitted that had not been done under sound scientific practice; data were missing; necessary documentation to reconstruct the study, also known as an audit trail, was not in place, it was this evidence that lead to the Good Laboratory Practice Standards (GLPs) being codified and becoming regulation. The GLPs were meant to assure that studies submitted to the agencies for the registration of products for which they were responsible would protect the environment, and, the safety and health of the public.

美国EPA FIFRA GLP标准与美国FDA GLP标准在非临床实验室研究中的比较。
在20世纪80年代早期,环境保护署和食品药物管理局都收到了关于他们监管的产品的研究,这些研究不科学,有些甚至是欺诈性的。提交的研究报告没有在健全的科学实践下进行;数据缺失;重建研究的必要文件,也被称为审计跟踪,没有到位,正是这些证据导致了良好实验室操作标准(glp)被编纂并成为法规。glp旨在确保提交给各机构注册其负责的产品的研究报告将保护环境以及公众的安全和健康。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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