National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

HARDBACK
price:$59.95
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Dietary Supplements: A Framework for Evaluating Safety (2005)
Institute of Medicine (IOM)

Citation Manager

. "Appendix A: Existing Frameworks or Systems for Evaluating the Safety of Other Substances." Dietary Supplements: A Framework for Evaluating Safety. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
315
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Dietary Supplements: A Framework for Evaluating Safety

and health hazards using analog analysis, quantitative structure activity relationship models, and expert judgment. The structure activity team has identified 54 structural alert categories that may indicate a potential concern for chemicals that fall into these categories (Personal communication, L. Scarano, EPA, October 11, 2001).

The third step is to prioritize the results of the safety evaluations and to decide if further review is warranted. If it is required, the next step is a more detailed standard review. In this step, a risk assessment is conducted, human health hazard information is evaluated, and the chemical is assigned a qualitative determination of the hazard concern level. Evidence of adverse effects in human populations and conclusive evidence of severe effects in animal studies constitute a high hazard concern level. A moderate level of concern results from suggestive animal studies and analog data and knowledge that the chemical class has produced toxicity. The low concern level is for those chemicals for which no concern was identified. At this point, depending on the hazard concern level and considering the estimated exposures and releases, EPA will inform the manufacturer that the chemical presents potential risk issues and that more testing is needed. If EPA does not act to regulate the chemical, the manufacturer may commence production or importation.

REFERENCES

Bergfeld WF, Andersen FA. 2000. The cosmetic ingredient review. In: Estrin NF, Akerson JM, eds. Cosmetic Regulation in a Competitive Environment. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 195–216.


CDER (Center for Drug Evaluation and Research). 2001. Milestone Status of OTC Drug Review Documents as of March 1, 2001. Online. Food and Drug Administration. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/otc/milestone/pdf. Accessed March 28, 2002.


Degnan FH. 2000. FDA’s Creative Application of the Law. Washington, DC: Food, Drug, and Law Institute. Pp. 19–26.


Hallagan JB, Hall RL. 1995. FEMA GRAS—A GRAS assessment program for flavor ingredients. Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 21:422–430.


OFAS (Office of Food Additive Safety). 2003. Redbook 2000. Toxicological Principles for the Safety of Food Ingredients. Online. Available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~redbook/red-toca.html. Accessed March 28, 2002.


Woods LA, Doull J. 1991. GRAS evaluation of flavoring substances by the Expert Panel of FEMA. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 14:48–58.

Page
315
Front Matter (R1-R20)
Executive Summary (1-18)
1 Introduction and Background (19-42)
2 Approaches Used by Others and Existing Safety Frameworks (43-84)
3 The Framework (85-125)
4 Categories of Scientific Evidence--Human Information and Data (126-155)
5 Categories of Scientific Evidence--Animal Data (156-174)
6 Categories of Scientific Evidence--Information About Related Substances (175-216)
7 Categories of Scientific Evidence--In Vitro Data (217-234)
8 Interactions (235-246)
9 Vulnerable Groups and Prevalance of Use (247-252)
10 Scientific Principles for Integrating and Evaluating the Available Data (253-268)
11 Applying the Framework: Case Studies Using the Prototype Safety Monographs (269-291)
12 Factors Influencing Use of the Safety Framework (292-296)
13 Findings and Recommendations (297-306)
Appendix A: Existing Frameworks or Systems for Evaluating the Safety of Other Substances (307-315)
Appendix B: Scope of Work and Comments to Initial July 2002 Framework (316-321)
Appendix C: Plant Family Information (322-355)
Appendix D: Chaparral: Prototype Monograph Summary (356-362)
Appendix E: Glucosamine: Prototype Monograph Summary (363-366)
Appendix F: Melatonin: Prototype Monograph Summary (367-371)
Appendix G: Chromium Picolinate: Prototype Monograph Summary (372-375)
Appendix H: Saw Palmetto: Prototype Monograph Summary (376-379)
Appendix I: Shark Cartilage: Prototype Monograph Summary (380-384)
Appendix J: Prototype Focused Monograph: Review of Liver-Related Risks for Chaparral (385-449)
Appendix K: Protoype Focused Monograph: Review of Anti-Androgenic Risks of Saw Palmetto Ingestion by Women (450-477)
Appendix L: Acknowledgements (478-480)
Appendix M: Biographical Sketches of Commitee Members (481-488)
Index (489-506)