CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 235Agricultural safety and regulationsFood Safety and HygieneHealthcare Regulation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Generally recognized as safe (GRAS): history and description

Burdock, George A, Carabin, Ioana G·2004·Toxicology Letters
DOI 10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.07.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Generally recognized as safe (GRAS), a system for review and approval of ingredients for addition to food, was conceived at a time when the need for a less doctrinaire review of food ingredients was critical. The GRAS approval process for a food ingredient relies on the judgment of "...experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate its safety..." the end product of which is no better or worse than that by FDA, but often more expeditious. The process and requirements for a successful GRAS determination are discussed and compared with that of the food additive petition (FAP) process. The future of the GRAS process is assured by its history of successful performance, bringing safe food ingredients to the consumer in a timely manner.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.07.004

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Hutt, P.B., Merrill, R.A., 1991. Food and Drug Law, Cases and Materials, second ed. University Casebook Series, Foundation Press, Westbury, NY, 1354 pp.
  2. Hyman, P., 2002. US food and drug law and FDA—a historical background. In: Piña, K.R., Pines, W.L. (Eds.), A Practical Guide to Food and Drug Law Regulation, second ed. Food and Drug Law Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 15–45.
  3. Kotsonis, F., Burdock, G.A., Flamm, W.G., 2001. Food toxicology. In: Klaassen, C.D. (Ed), Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, sixth ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 1049–1088 (Chapter 31).
  4. Kracov, D.A., 2002. The regulation of foods and food additives. In: Piña, K.R., Pines, W.L. (Eds.), A Practical Guide to Food and Drug Law Regulation, second ed. Food and Drug Law Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 159–214.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 235

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Burdock, G. A., & Carabin, I. G.
Corresponding author
Burdock, George A
ORCID
Burdock, George A
Venue
Toxicology Letters
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-04
Volume
150
Issue
1
Pages
3-18
ISSN
0378-4274 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.07.004
OpenAlex
W2050665337
Cited by
235
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Toxicology Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Safety and Hygiene
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Regulation
Keywords
GRAS, food ingredient safety, FDA regulatory process, food additive regulation
MeSH terms
Food, Food Additives, Humans, Legislation, Food, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, History, 20th Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review