Rebooting the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) approach for food additive safety in the US

Hartung, Thomas

Rebooting the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) approach for food additive safety in the US

Dateien

Hartung_2-k0h8ofqfatcb9.pdfGröße: 1.11 MBDownloads: 1098

Datum

2018

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Open Access Gold

Sammlungen

Biologie

Publikationstyp

Zeitschriftenartikel

Publikationsstatus

Published

Erschienen in

Alternatives to Animal Experimentation : ALTEX. 2018, 35(1), pp. 3-25. ISSN 0946-7785. eISSN 1868-8551. Available under: doi: 10.14573/altex.1712181

Zusammenfassung

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has premarket review authority over food additives, but a food manufacturer may, according to the legislation, intentionally add a substance to human food or animal food without their premarket review or approval if the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, to be safe under the conditions of its intended use. Generally recognized as safe (GRAS) implies that the current scientific community agrees on the adequacy of how data is generated. This system has come under public pressure because of doubts as to its efficiency and the FDA's recent GRAS rule is part of the response. The FDA guidance for testing food additives, known as the "Redbook", is about two decades old. Work toward a new "Redbook" is on the way, but the US Grocery Manufacturer Association (GMA) also has initiated the development of an independent standard on how to perform GRAS determinations.
This review of the current guidance shows a very rigorous system for higher concern levels, but also many waiving options. Opportunities and challenges for safety evaluations of food additives are discussed. Where scientific progress has allowed improving existing and adapting new methods, these should be adopted to improve product safety and animal welfare. The continuous adaptation of such improved methods is therefore needed. Especially, there are opportunities to embrace developments within the toxicity testing for the 21st century movement and evidence-based toxicology approaches. Also, the growing understanding of the limitations of traditional tests needs to be considered.

Fachgebiet (DDC)

570 Biowissenschaften, Biologie

Schlagwörter

food additives, safety testing, US legislation, animal testing, alternative methods

Zitieren

ISO 690

HARTUNG, Thomas, 2018. Rebooting the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) approach for food additive safety in the US. In: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation : ALTEX. 2018, 35(1), pp. 3-25. ISSN 0946-7785. eISSN 1868-8551. Available under: doi: 10.14573/altex.1712181

BibTex

@article{Hartung2018Reboo-41791,
  year={2018},
  doi={10.14573/altex.1712181},
  title={Rebooting the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) approach for food additive safety in the US},
  number={1},
  volume={35},
  issn={0946-7785},
  journal={Alternatives to Animal Experimentation : ALTEX},
  pages={3--25},
  author={Hartung, Thomas}
}

RDF

<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/41791">
    <dc:contributor>Hartung, Thomas</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28"/>
    <dc:rights>Attribution 4.0 International</dc:rights>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2018-03-15T08:21:41Z</dc:date>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/41791"/>
    <dc:creator>Hartung, Thomas</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:title>Rebooting the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) approach for food additive safety in the US</dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/41791/3/Hartung_2-k0h8ofqfatcb9.pdf"/>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2018-03-15T08:21:41Z</dcterms:available>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/41791/3/Hartung_2-k0h8ofqfatcb9.pdf"/>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"/>
    <dcterms:issued>2018</dcterms:issued>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has premarket review authority over food additives, but a food manufacturer may, according to the legislation, intentionally add a substance to human food or animal food without their premarket review or approval if the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, to be safe under the conditions of its intended use. Generally recognized as safe (GRAS) implies that the current scientific community agrees on the adequacy of how data is generated. This system has come under public pressure because of doubts as to its efficiency and the FDA's recent GRAS rule is part of the response. The FDA guidance for testing food additives, known as the "Redbook", is about two decades old. Work toward a new "Redbook" is on the way, but the US Grocery Manufacturer Association (GMA) also has initiated the development of an independent standard on how to perform GRAS determinations.&lt;br /&gt;This review of the current guidance shows a very rigorous system for higher concern levels, but also many waiving options. Opportunities and challenges for safety evaluations of food additives are discussed. Where scientific progress has allowed improving existing and adapting new methods, these should be adopted to improve product safety and animal welfare. The continuous adaptation of such improved methods is therefore needed. Especially, there are opportunities to embrace developments within the toxicity testing for the 21st century movement and evidence-based toxicology approaches. Also, the growing understanding of the limitations of traditional tests needs to be considered.</dcterms:abstract>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Universitätsbibliographie

Ja

Begutachtet

Ja