Suppr超能文献

一般认为安全(GRAS)对功能性食品和营养保健品行业的重要性。

The importance of GRAS to the functional food and nutraceutical industries.

作者信息

Burdock George A, Carabin Ioana G, Griffiths James C

机构信息

Burdock Group, 888 17th Street NW, Suite 810, Washington, DC 20006, USA.

出版信息

Toxicology. 2006 Apr 3;221(1):17-27. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2006.01.012. Epub 2006 Feb 17.

Abstract

At a time when 150 million Americans spend over $20.5 billion on functional foods, nutraceuticals and dietary supplements, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is doing little to ensure that all the safe and efficacious products that could come to the market are allowed to do so. FDA has only responded slowly and reluctantly to Congressional action and to mandates from the Courts to implement the law. Additionally, FDA had set the bar too high for Health Claims and was forced by the Courts to implement a more reasonable standard, but the response, Qualified Health Claims, has failed to gain the confidence of the public because of the confusing wording of the claims demanded by FDA. Congressional efforts to assure consumer access to dietary supplements have been met with similar resistance from FDA. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was the product of a compromise with a lower threshold for demonstration of safety (reasonable expectation of no harm) that would be met by consumer self-policing and assumption of some risk. FDA has thwarted this effort by raising the bar for New Dietary Ingredient Notifications (NDIN) to what appears to be the higher threshold for the safety of food ingredients (reasonable certainty of no harm)--FDA apparently sees these two safety thresholds as a distinction without a difference. As a result, increasing numbers of dietary supplement manufacturers, unwilling to gamble the future of their products to a system that provides little hope for the FDA's response of "no objection", have committed the additional resources necessary to obtain Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) status for their supplements. The pressure on FDA and Congress for change is again building with increased dissatisfaction among consumers as the result of confusing labels. A second force for change will be a need to uncouple the FDA mandated substance-disease relationship and return to the substance-claim relationship to allow for progress in nutrigenomics and metabolomics, which will result in an increasing number of substance-biomarker claims.

摘要

在1.5亿美国人在功能性食品、营养保健品和膳食补充剂上花费超过205亿美元之际,美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)在确保所有可能上市的安全有效产品得以进入市场方面几乎无所作为。FDA对国会行动以及法院要求实施该法律的指令反应迟缓且勉强。此外,FDA对健康声明的标准定得过高,后被法院迫使实施更合理的标准,但所做出的回应——有条件健康声明,却因FDA要求的声明措辞令人困惑而未能赢得公众信任。国会为确保消费者能够获取膳食补充剂所做的努力也遭到了FDA类似的抵制。《膳食补充剂健康与教育法》(DSHEA)是妥协的产物,其安全证明的门槛较低(合理预期无危害),由消费者自我监管并承担一定风险来满足。FDA提高了新膳食成分通知(NDIN)的标准,使其达到似乎是食品成分安全性的更高门槛(合理确定无危害),从而阻碍了这一努力——FDA显然认为这两个安全门槛并无区别。结果,越来越多的膳食补充剂制造商不愿将其产品的未来押在一个对FDA的“无异议”回应几乎不报希望的体系上,而是投入额外资源,为其补充剂获取普遍认为安全(GRAS)的地位。由于标签令人困惑,消费者不满情绪增加,对FDA和国会进行变革的压力再度增大。变革的另一股力量将是需要解除FDA规定的物质与疾病关系,回归物质与声明关系,以便在营养基因组学和代谢组学方面取得进展,这将导致越来越多的物质与生物标志物声明出现。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验