Letter of no objection

These processes for PET yield materials that can be used interchangeably with virgin PET, and several companies have received letters of no objection for these processes. 

In Canada and the United States, the food additive petition processes are similar and require premarket review and approval. In the United States, under the proposed GRAS Notification rule, a manufacturer can declare that a substance is GRAS if there is scientific consensus among qualified experts about its safety under the conditions of intended use. The manufacturer then notifies FDA, and if the agency has no questions, a letter of no objection is issued. 

By contrast, the GRAS Notification process requires that the manufacturer make the initial declaration of the safety of the product based on consensus by qualified experts. FDA then reviews the notification and, if all of its questions are satisfactorily answered, the agency issues a letter of no objection. Because this process has become the primary route of introduction of new ingredients to infant formulas, the GRAS Notification process is reviewed in greater detail in Chapter 4. 

The regulatory agency would review the panel s safety assessment and other data in the submission and if satisfied, would issue a letter of no objection. If the regulatory agency has questions and the manufacturer does not answer them satisfactorily, the agency can reject the submission, ask the company to withdraw it, or suggest consultation with additional experts qualified to opine on the specific safety concerns. 

In 1991, Goodyear obtained a letter of no objection from the U.S. PDA for the use of its Repete tertiary recycled PET in food contact applications. The process, later sold to... 

This powerpoint presentation reviews food-contact regulations worldwide with reference to current systems for regulating food-contact materials. These include general safety requirements, licensing/registration, mandatory and voluntary positive lists, no objection letters, and combinations of the above and their applicability to various countries. 

Monsanto, like many chemical firms, had a product safety program in place long before passage of TSCA. The Monsanto program from its inception embraced the spirit and in many cases the letter of what later appeared as the law. In some situations TSCA has improved the focus of Monsanto s information management and has been beneficial. In other cases we have provided constructive criticism of EPA proposed rules which required information submission and management with no specific objective. 

An auditor who is examining a facility s process safety information against the OSHA standard will check that the information specified is written down and made available to those who need it. If those requirements are met then the audit requirement has been met. If they do not then the auditor has identified a deficiency or gap. It then becomes someone else s responsibility to turn the findings into recommendations or action items. An auditor s job is to objectively uncover deviations from the standards—no more, no less. The auditor is interested primarily in the letter of the law. Therefore, with regard to the safety information example just provided it is not the auditor s job to assess the quality of the information or the manner in which it is communicated. 

Doctor Smith, you say, asks what is the best elementary book on the principles of government. None in the world equal to the Review of Montesquieu, printed at Philadelphia a few years ago. It has the advantage, too, of being equally sound and corrective of the principles of political economy and all within the compass of a thin 8vo. Chipman s and Priestley s Principles of Government, and the Federalists, are excellent in many respects, but for fundamental principles not comparable to the Review, I have no objections to the printing my letter to Mr, Carr, if it will promote the interests of science although it was not written with a view to its publication. 

The close of my second sheet warns me that it is time now to relieve you from this letter of unmerciful length. Indeed, I wonder how I have accomplished it, with two crippled wrists, the one scarcely able to move my pen, the other to hold my paper. But I am hurried sometimes beyond the sense of pain, when unbosoming myself to friends who harmonize with me in principle. You and I may differ occasionally in details of minor consequence, as no two minds, more than two faces, are the same in every feature. But our general objects are the same, to preserve the republican form and principles of our constitution and cleave to the salutary distribution of powers which that has established. These are the two sheet anchors of our Union. If driven from either, we shall be in danger of foundering. To my prayers for its safety and perpetuity, I add those for the continuation of your health, happiness, and usefulness to your country. 

Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more compleatly invulnerable. Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter. Those who object to the article therefore as a part of the Constitution, can only mean that the form of the provision is improper. But have they considered whether a better form could have been substituted ... 

The use of PCR material for food contact packaging involves a governmental approval of the recycling process ability to decontaminate the material. In the USA, it takes the form of a no objection letter (NOL) being issued by the FDA after reviewing submitted data of decontamination. The FDA lists about 125 NOL, all but a few are for PET. The first PET NOL was issued in 1991 to Hoechst Celanese, an early supplier of PET resin. 

To the Editor I should like to reply to Dr. Thomas Perry s letter published June 18, 1970. Dr. Perry s objections are well intentioned there is no doubt. He is concerned about our inappropriate and immoral national policies. He is concerned about potential misuse of scientific information for purposes other than the good of mankind. How can anyone disagree Yet his approach will not serve to implement any real change in the basis for these concerns. If we contemplate changing the course of our nation, must we not direct our efforts toward those capable of seeing that a change takes place ... 

---