The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparison of Current Regulatory Frameworks for Nutraceuticals in Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United States.
Abstract
The nutraceutical market is growing and the demand for products is increasing. Consumers are looking for cheaper alternatives to prescription medications as well as health products to supplement their dietary intake on a regular basis. Many countries classify these products into different categories based on their health claims. The purpose of this review is to compare and contrast the differences of regulatory frameworks in countries of similar status in regard to nutraceutical products: vitamins, minerals, herbal supplements, and probiotics. This review also takes into consideration the aspects of nutraceutical safety in relation to government regulations. It is evident that further discussion is indicated with regard to the harmonization of nutraceutical product regulation in a global context in order to promote and protect public health. This literature review selected 27 documents for a review using a systematic search of internet databases and search engines including PUBMED and Google Scholar. These documents were reviewed and synthesized for data relating to nutraceutical regulation within the four different countries of focus. Outcomes included information on safety and toxicity, drug interactions, classification of products, and regulatory processes for nutraceutical product approval in each country.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“The limitations identified in this review reflect the less stringent regulations in the nutraceutical sector compared to pharmaceuticals (Blaze, 2021).”
From A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of turmeric in the treatment of digestive disorders (2024) · cites this paper as Blaze, 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults and children
Goldenberg, J. Z., Ma, S. S., Saxton, J. D., Martzen, M. R., Vandvik, P. O., Thorlund, K., Guyatt, G. H., & Johnston, B. C. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006095.pub3 · Cited by 741
Cited by
A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of turmeric in the treatment of digestive disorders
Thavorn, K., Wolfe, D., Faust, L., Shorr, R., Akkawi, M., Isaranuwatchai, W., Klinger, C., Chai‐Adisaksopa, C., Tanvejsilp, P., Nochaiwong, S., et al. (2024) · Phytotherapy Research · doi:10.1002/ptr.8189 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Blaze, J.
- Venue
- INNOVATIONS in pharmacy
- Publisher
- University of Minnesota
- Published
- 2021-04-21
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 8
- ISSN
- 2155-0417
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 1
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Current Regulatory Frameworks for Nutraceuticals in Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.24926/iip.v12i2.3694
- The paper
- Blaze, J. (2021). A Comparison of Current Regulatory Frameworks for Nutraceuticals in Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United States. INNOVATIONS in pharmacy. https://doi.org/10.24926/iip.v12i2.3694
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.