Evaluation of the health aspects of agar-agar as a food ingredient.

"December 1973"

FDA Approved Animal Drug Products, 1998

See subscription record for further copies and location of electronic copy.

Establishments and products licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act /

Description based on: June 1982.

National drug code directory.

Vols. for 1970-1972 published by the Public Health Service; 1976- by the Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration; 1980- by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration.

Service and regulatory announcements.

Some numbers issued in revised editions.

Service and Regulatory Announcements. Caustic Poison

Mode of access: Internet.

Process inventory and pollution prevention overview for the citrus industry

Florida citrus represents approximately 70 percent of the industry production in the United States; therefore, any associated agricultural and industrial contamination is of concern and a focus of attention. The use of synthetic organic chemicals has become a farmer's necessity in order to supply consumers with high quality products, free of pest damage. However, industrial citrus wastes and chemical residual levels worry not only government agencies but also consumers since they indicate a serious habitat risk. This study assesses citrus industrial processes and the paths that chemical substances follow from the time the citrus seed is planted until consumers get a final product as either fresh fruit or processed product. The study is built on information from United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) manuals, Dade County Environmental Resources Management (DERM) inspection records, United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) regulations, Florida standards, journal publications, and research reports. Pollution prevention (P2 or prevention-of-pollution) alternatives are identified; alternatives are proposed, evaluated, and included. Strategies are described and pollution prevention opportunities proposed to minimize citrus wastes generation, chemical residuals in products, their environmental impact and health risk aspects while maximizing product quality.

Do peroxisome proliferating compounds pose a hepatocarcinogenic hazard to humans?

The purpose of the workshop "Do Peroxisome Proliferating Compounds Pose a Hepatocarcinogenic Hazard to Humans?" was to provide a review of the current state of the science on the relationship between peroxisome proliferation and hepatocarcinogenesis. There has been much debate regarding the mechanism by which peroxisome proliferators may induce liver tumors in rats and mice and whether these events occur in humans. A primary goal of the workshop was to determine where consensus might be reached regarding the interpretation of these data relative to the assessment of potential human risks. A core set of biochemical and cellular events has been identified in the rodent strains that are susceptible to the hepatocarcinogenic effects of peroxisome proliferators, including peroxisome proliferation, increases in fatty acyl-CoA oxidase levels, microsomal fatty acid oxidation, excess production of hydrogen peroxide, increases in rates of cell proliferation, and expression and activation of the alpha subtype of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR-alpha). Such effects have not been identified clinically in liver biopsies from humans exposed to peroxisome proliferators or in in vitro studies with human hepatocytes, although PPAR-alpha is expressed at a very low level in human liver. Consensus was reached regarding the significant intermediary roles of cell proliferation and PPAR-alpha receptor expression and activation in tumor formation. Information considered necessary for characterizing a compound as a peroxisome proliferating hepatocarcinogen include hepatomegaly, enhanced cell proliferation, and an increase in hepatic acyl-CoA oxidase and/or palmitoyl-CoA oxidation levels. Given the lack of genotoxic potential of most peroxisome proliferating agents, and since humans appear likely to be refractive or insensitive to the tumorigenic response, risk assessments based on tumor data may not be appropriate. However, nontumor data on intermediate endpoints would provide appropriate toxicological endpoints to determine a point of departure such as the LED10 or NOAEL which would be the basis for a margin-of-exposure (MOE) risk assessment approach. Pertinent factors to be considered in the MOE evaluation would include the slope of the dose-response curve at the point of departure, the background exposure levels, and variability in the human response.