《主要生产及加工标准的政策指引》

  • 来源专题:食物与营养
  • 编译者: 潘淑春
  • 发布时间:2016-05-06
  • Food Safety Management in Australia Policy Guidelines (Word 70 KB) Food Safety Management in Australia Policy Guidelines (PDF 99 KB) In October 2009, the Ministerial Council agreed that the Food Regulation Standing Committee (FRSC) would undertake a review of the guidelines of the 2003 Ministerial Policy Guideline on Food Safety Management in Australia – Food Safety Programs. On 9 December 2011, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation (convening as the Ministerial Council) considered the outcome of this review and agreed to put in place a new Food Safety Management Policy Guideline for the retail/food service sectors. The new guideline provides a framework for the development of effective, efficient and nationally consistent food safety management arrangements for the retail/food service sectors. The implementation of the 2003 Policy Guideline, as it applies to other food industry sectors, has been completed and remains unchanged. Revised Food Safety Management in Australia Policy Guideline (Word 40 KB) Revised Food Safety Management in Australia Policy Guideline (PDF 60 KB) Top of page .
    Policy Guideline for the Fortification of Foods with Vitamins and Minerals .
    On 28 May 2004, the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation (Ministerial Council) endorsed a Policy Guideline for the Fortification of Foods with Vitamins and Minerals. The policy covered both mandatory and voluntary fortification of foods. Ministers agreed that vitamins and minerals may be added to food where there is, for example, demonstrated evidence of a potential health benefit, and it is clear that the fortification of a food will not result in harm. On 23 October 2009, the Ministerial Council endorsed an amended version of the Policy Guideline for the Fortification of Foods with Vitamins and Minerals in order to clarify its intent. On 20 November 2015 the Ministerial Council agreed to a statement clarifying the original intent of the Policy Guideline for the Fortification of Food with Vitamins and Minerals. Policy clarification statement to be read with the policy guideline - November, 2015 (Word 13 KB) Policy clarification statement to be read with the policy guideline - November, 2015 (PDF 104 KB) Policy Guideline for the Fortification of Foods with Vitamins and Minerals (Word 32 KB) Policy Guideline for the Fortification of Foods with Vitamins and Minerals (PDF 36 KB) Policy Guideline on Infant Formula Products.
    In 2009, the Food Regulation Standing Committee (FRSC) Working Group on the Regulation of Infant Formula Products published a Policy Options Consultation Paper to inform the development of Policy Guidelines for the Regulation of Infant Formula Products. Submissions from interested parties on the Policy Option Consultation Paper closed on 1 September 2009. A summary of submissions is attached to this page. Following a review of all the submissions, the FRSC Working Group developed a draft Policy Guideline for consideration by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council) At their meeting on 6 May 2011 the Ministerial Council endorsed the Policy Guideline on the Regulation of Infant Formula. Policy Guideline on the Regulation of Infant Formula Products (Word 27 KB) Policy Guideline on the Regulation of Infant Formula Products (PDF 40 KB) Summary of Submissions on the Policy Options Consultation Paper (Word 203 KB) Summary of Submissions on the Policy Options Consultation Paper (PDF 135 KB) Standard 2.9.1 Infant Formula Products (Word 95 KB) Standard 2.9.1 Infant Formula Products (PDF 165 KB) Food Regulation Policy Options Consultation Paper (Word 572 KB) Food Regulation Policy Options Consultation Paper (PDF 388 KB) Terms of Reference for Working Group on Infant Formula Products Revised Timeline for Policy Guideline on Infant Formula Products (Word 15 KB) Revised Timeline for Policy Guideline on Infant Formula Products (PDF 10 KB) Policy Guideline on Intent of Part 2.9 of the Food Standards Code – Special purpose foods.
    In November 2007, the Food Regulation Standing Committee (FRSC) tasked the Addition to Food of Substances other than Vitamins and Minerals Working Group (Working Group) with developing a Policy Guideline for the intent of Part 2.9– Special Purpose Foods of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code). The Policy Guideline was developed to provide overarching guidance to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and assist them in their review and any future development of food standards in Part 2.9 of the Food Standards Code (the Code). It was not the intention of the Policy Guideline to remove any Standards from the Code but to provide FSANZ with guidance to ensure that Standards relating to Special Purpose Foods were placed appropriately within the Code, and conversely that Part 2.9 Standards do not unintentionally capture foods that are general purpose in nature. The Policy Options Consultation Paper on the Intent of 2.9 was released for public consultation from 17 January to 2 March 2009. Following review of all the submissions, the FRSC Working Group drafted a Policy Guideline for consideration by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council). On 23 October 2009, the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council) endorsed the Policy Guideline on the Intent of Part 2.9 of the Food Standards Code - Special Purpose Foods. Policy Guideline on the intent of Part 2.9 of the Code - Special Purpose Foods (Word 24 KB) Policy Guideline on the intent of Part 2.9 of the Code - Special Purpose Foods (PDF 23 KB) Review on the intent of Part 2.9 of the code - Special Purpose Foods (Word 24 KB) Review on the intent of Part 2.9 of the code - Special Purpose Foods (PDF 23 KB) Summary of Submissions - Scoping Phase (Word 169 KB) Summary of Submissions - Scoping Phase (PDF 200 KB) Terms of Reference for the Working Group on Intent of Part 2.9 of the Code Revised timelines for Policy Guideline on Intent of Part 2.9 of the Code Consultation Paper on Food Regulatory Policy Options (Word 67 KB) Consultation Paper on Food Regulatory Policy Options (PDF 70 KB) Policy Guideline on Novel Foods .
    Novel foods are those foods that are non-traditional to Australia and New Zealand, and for which there has been no safety evaluation. On 12 December 2003, the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council) asked Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to review the standard and associated user guide. Novel Foods Policy Guidelines (Word 19 KB) Novel Foods Policy Guidelines (PDF 14 KB) Policy Guideline on Nutrition, Health and Related Claims .
    On 12 December 2003 the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council) endorsed a nutrition, health and related claims policy guideline. The policy aims to ensure that the health and safety of the public is protected, whilst still allowing for food industry innovation and trade. It does this by incorporating a number of elements designed to ensure that claims made on foods or in advertising are true, scientifically substantiated and not misleading. On 28 May 2004 Ministers further considered the issue of biomarker maintenance claims. The Ministerial Council determined that claims regarding the maintenance of a biomarker would be permitted on foods. They will be treated in the same way as biomarker enhancement claims. That is, manufacturers will be required to apply to FSANZ for approval of a biomarker maintenance claim, prior to releasing the product to market. This will ensure that claims are appropriately substantiated, and subject to public consultation, prior to their use. The attached policy guideline has been updated to reflect this decision. Nutrition, Health and Related Claims Policy Guideline (Word 171 KB) Nutrition, Health and Related Claims Policy Guideline (PDF 60 KB) Top of page Policy Guideline on Primary Production and Processing Standards .
    The reform of the Australian food regulatory system, driven by the November 2000 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Food Regulation Agreement included the transfer of responsibility for the development of primary production standards from the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). This was a key component of the new food regulation system in Australia. The attached documents were developed to enable FSANZ to undertake this responsibility. The Model for Primary Production and Processing Standards and the FSANZ Primary Production and Processing Standards Protocol were endorsed by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council) on 24 May 2002. The Overarching Policy Guideline on Primary Production and Processing Standards was endorsed by the Ministerial Council on 28 June 2002. At a meeting on 5 May 2006 the Ministerial Council revised the Overarching Policy Guideline for Primary Production and Processing Standards in order to reflect improved operating processes since 2002 and to correct inconsistencies between the guideline and the FSANZ Act. Overarching Policy Guideline on Primary Production and Processing Standards (Word 19 KB) Overarching Policy Guideline on Primary Production and Processing Standards (PDF 34 KB) Policy Guideline on the Regulation of Residues of Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals in Food.

相关报告
  • 《PLOS作者署名政策更新:采用更具包容性的标准》

    • 来源专题:科技期刊发展智库
    • 编译者:华宁
    • 发布时间:2023-09-07
    •   期刊和出版商的作者署名政策有助于支持研究人员做出作者署名决定。PLOS通过将其相关政策植根于整个行业的标准,推动整个行业的期刊统一作者署名规范。然而,当政策所依据的标准不能满足作者群体的需要时,必须根据需要进行调整。   2023年5月,PLOS更新了作者署名政策,涉及作者署名标准的更新:除了PLOS Medicine,其他所有PLOS期刊现在都适用2018年Marcia McNutt等人在PNAS发文中提出的作者署名政策。PLOS Medicine是ICMJE成员,继续适用ICMJE作者署名标准。   在这一变化之前,所有PLOS期刊都遵循国际医学期刊编辑委员会(ICMJE)的作者署名标准。该标准是由临床和生物医学研究界制定的,在PLOS创建最初的编辑政策时,ICMJE作者署名标准是STM出版的主导标准。   2018年,美国国家科学院努力制定更广泛的学科相关的标准,因此出现了一个替代标准(即2018年Marcia McNutt等人提出的作者署名政策)。2018年的作者署名政策与ICMJE在学术认可和责任的核心要求上保持一致:两者都建议应将实质性贡献记入作者名下,所有符合资格的人都应列为作者,作者必须在出版前后履行某些责任。然而,这两个标准在一些具体细节上有所不同。   需要指出的是,2018年的作者署名政策对哪些类型的贡献可以获得作者署名采取了更具包容性的态度:支持软件工具开发作为作者署名的贡献,并且不要求所有作者对研究和论文撰写或修改做出实质性贡献。考虑到PLOS所服务的学术社区的广泛性,因此,更具包容性的2018年标准更适合PLOS期刊。   PLOS期刊通常要求由作者自己来决定署名,并要求使用CRediT标准来描述每个作者的贡献。然而,并不是所有的PLOS期刊都严格执行作者所列的贡献是否满足ICMJE的所有标准。PLOS对稿件透明度的要求和作者署名政策中的相关条款,有助于处理作者署名不当的问题。   通过这次政策更新,PLOS将继续努力推进开放科学,服务于不同的学术社区,并在发表的科研记录的过程中促进包容和透明的学术认可方式。这次更新能够改善那些对研究或报告做出重大贡献,但可能没有机会、技能或资源来满足ICMJE所要求的署名资格。
  • 《定义同行评审的标准和新兴模型》

    • 来源专题:科技期刊发展智库
    • 编译者:谢鹏亚
    • 发布时间:2023-11-07
    •   严格和公正的同行评审对于维护学术研究的完整性和质量标准至关重要,也是出版过程中不可或缺的一部分。虽然同行评审的早期形式早在17世纪就在欧洲出现了,但它只是在20世纪中后期才变得更加明显,当时出现了“同行评审”一词。20世纪40年代第二次世界大战结束后,随着复印机的出现,同行评审成为一种普遍做法,这使得向同一学科的专家分发论文变得更加容易。该领域的先驱之一是20世纪40年代末的《美国医学会杂志》,并且在接下来的几十年中被其他期刊沿用,包括1964年的《自然》杂志和1976年的《柳叶刀》。   同行评审被称为评估研究的“黄金标准”,不同出版商的同行评审各不相同,以适应他们的政策和偏好,并迎合学术界不断变化的需求。很难理解和评估这些形式的同行评审之间的主要区别,有些常被错误地互换使用。Aries systems在2023年8月17日发布同行评审的标准和新兴模型,下面列出简要概述。 (1)单向盲审   作者没有关于审稿人的信息,审稿人知道作者信息。   优点: ●审稿人因匿名而客观评审 ●审稿人可以参考作者以往研究来判断此研究的深度及可靠性   缺点: ●审稿人可能会对作者存在有意识或无意识的偏见 ●审稿人可能因匿名而对评审不负责任 (2)双向盲审   作者和审稿人互相不能查看信息。   优点: ●减少审稿人和作者有意识或无意识偏见的可能性 ●减少审稿人因发表意见而被评判的风险   缺点: ●审稿人和作者能够根据研究风格和类型来识别彼此 ●审稿人可能因匿名而对评审不负责任 (3)三重盲审   作者和审稿人都不知道对方的信息,编辑也不知道他们的信息。   优点: ●减少审稿人、作者和编辑有意识或无意识偏见的可能性 ●减少审稿人因发表意见而被评判的风险   缺点: ●审稿人、作者和编辑能够根据研究风格和类型来识别彼此 ●审稿人可能因匿名而对评审不负责任 ●因控制各环节匿名可能导致管理成本增高 (4)开放式同行评审   作者和审稿人互相知道身份。   优点: ●提高透明度和问责制,审稿人因互知身份而深思熟虑 ●审稿人可能得到更多认可 ●公开评审可以为作者和别的审稿人提供参考借鉴 ●提高公众/学术界对评审的信任度,增加评审过程的透明度   缺点: ●有些审稿人拒绝暴露自己身份,抗拒公开审稿 ●审稿人和作者可能会存在有意识或无意识的偏见,特别是在地理领域等作者较少的主题领域 (5)透明的同行评审   与论文报告一起发表评审,审稿人可以选择是否公开自己的身份。   优点: ●提高透明度和问责制,审稿人会慎重对待评审过程 ●审稿人可能得到更多认可 ●该领域的专家能够利用评审中的意见   缺点: ●资历较浅的审稿人可能难以对资深作者提出评审意见 (6)协作同行评审:第一类   作者可以在论坛上收到来自审稿人的反馈,并可以实时解决问题。   优点: ●人多力量大 ●可以通过协作的方式更快更好的培训初级审稿人 ●协作的方式可以激发出更多观点 ●资历较浅的研究人员可能比资深研究人员更了解当前研究的最新情况   缺点: ●自动化的审稿系统可能只允许提交一份审稿意见 ●难以评判协作过程中所有审稿人的贡献 ●评审小组的构成不一致会导致评审结果的差异 (7)协作同行评审:第二类   作者可以在论坛上收到来自审稿人的反馈,并可以实时解决问题。   优点: ●缩短评审过程的时间 ●可能不需要编辑充当中间人 ●协作过程中审稿人可以及时解决分歧   缺点: ●审稿人协作情况下可能无法实现审稿人和作者之间的实时讨论,因此需要多个审稿系统 ●编辑无法软化尖锐的评审意见,作者可能无法得到建设性意见之外的细节问题 (8)众审   合格的审稿人尽可能少地(或尽可能多地)评论,不过评审的绝对数量让编辑对论文的优点和缺点有全面的了解。   优点: ●缩短评审过程的时间 ●减少审稿人的工作懈怠 ●增加审稿人的多样性,减少偏见 ●减轻编辑联系审稿人的负担   缺点: ●需要设计专门的评审系统 ●相比于传统形式的同行评审,编辑会收到来自审稿人的更多评审信息 ●仍然是一种较新的同行评审方法 ●存在群体思维的风险 ●难以评判同行评审的可信度