Review of the standards of proof (of safety) for FDA regulated consumer products and how the generally recognized as safe criteria could be applied to cosmetics

IF 3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, LEGAL Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Pub Date : 2024-03-15 DOI:10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105603
George A. Burdock
{"title":"Review of the standards of proof (of safety) for FDA regulated consumer products and how the generally recognized as safe criteria could be applied to cosmetics","authors":"George A. Burdock","doi":"10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) amends the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), elevating the standard of proof of safety (better known as a “safety standard”) for cosmetics to the standard of a “reasonable certainty … [of] … safe.”a standard equal to that of food ingredients. The standards of the proof of safety differ for various classes of FDA-regulated product categories <em>e.g</em>., cosmetics, dietary supplements, food ingredients and food itself. This manuscript describes the various standards of proof, the essential differences between the standards, key elements required to achieve a particular standard and, compares the standards to more familiar legal terms such as “a preponderance of the evidence” or “beyond reasonable doubt.” The standards of proof for these product categories are also ranked according to increasing threshold for achievement of “safe” status. Lastly, this manuscript suggests how the requirements for the high standard of a “reasonable certainty of safe” (or “reasonable certainty of no harm”) might be met.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":20852,"journal":{"name":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230024000448","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) amends the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), elevating the standard of proof of safety (better known as a “safety standard”) for cosmetics to the standard of a “reasonable certainty … [of] … safe.”a standard equal to that of food ingredients. The standards of the proof of safety differ for various classes of FDA-regulated product categories e.g., cosmetics, dietary supplements, food ingredients and food itself. This manuscript describes the various standards of proof, the essential differences between the standards, key elements required to achieve a particular standard and, compares the standards to more familiar legal terms such as “a preponderance of the evidence” or “beyond reasonable doubt.” The standards of proof for these product categories are also ranked according to increasing threshold for achievement of “safe” status. Lastly, this manuscript suggests how the requirements for the high standard of a “reasonable certainty of safe” (or “reasonable certainty of no harm”) might be met.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
审查 FDA 监管消费品的(安全)证明标准,以及如何将公认安全标准应用于化妆品。
2022 年化妆品管理现代化法案》(MoCRA)修订了《食品、药品和化妆品法》 (FDCA),将化妆品的安全证明标准(更多地被称为 "安全标准")提高到 "合理确 定......[的]......安全 "的标准,这一标准与食品成分的标准相同。食品及药物管理局监管的各类产品(如化妆品、膳食补充剂、食品配料和食品本身)的安全性证明标准各不相同。本手稿介绍了各种证明标准、标准之间的本质区别、达到特定标准所需的关键要素,并将这些标准与 "优势证据 "或 "排除合理怀疑 "等更熟悉的法律术语进行了比较。这些产品类别的举证标准还根据获得 "安全 "地位的门槛的提高进行了排序。最后,本手稿提出了如何达到 "合理确定安全"(或 "合理确定无害")这一高标准的要求。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
8.80%
发文量
147
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology publishes peer reviewed articles that involve the generation, evaluation, and interpretation of experimental animal and human data that are of direct importance and relevance for regulatory authorities with respect to toxicological and pharmacological regulations in society. All peer-reviewed articles that are published should be devoted to improve the protection of human health and environment. Reviews and discussions are welcomed that address legal and/or regulatory decisions with respect to risk assessment and management of toxicological and pharmacological compounds on a scientific basis. It addresses an international readership of scientists, risk assessors and managers, and other professionals active in the field of human and environmental health. Types of peer-reviewed articles published: -Original research articles of relevance for regulatory aspects covering aspects including, but not limited to: 1.Factors influencing human sensitivity 2.Exposure science related to risk assessment 3.Alternative toxicological test methods 4.Frameworks for evaluation and integration of data in regulatory evaluations 5.Harmonization across regulatory agencies 6.Read-across methods and evaluations -Contemporary Reviews on policy related Research issues -Letters to the Editor -Guest Editorials (by Invitation)
期刊最新文献
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals - pesticide regulatory issues from the EU perspective. Updated assessment of the genotoxic potential of titanium dioxide based on reviews of in vitro comet, mode of action and cellular uptake studies, and recent publications. Statistical applications of virtual control groups to nonrodent animal toxicity studies: An initial evaluation. Opportunities and Challenges for Use of Minipigs in Nonclinical Pharmaceutical Development: Results of a Follow-Up IQ DruSafe Survey. Toxicological evaluation of vanadium and derivation of a parenteral tolerable intake value for medical devices.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1