Return to Answer

Also, even regarding US requirements for sensitizing substances reporting, the 2nd source quoted by Christian's answer seem pretty dubious (single author with no academic or industry affiliation, publishing in an obscure journal) and it is the one making the bold claims that allergens in US vaccines are not reported (it's actually citing the author's personal communications with officials for that). The very same book from which the misleading red-underlined quote was taken says much more:

Also, even regarding US requirements for sensitizing substances reporting, the 2nd source quoted by Christian's answer seem pretty dubious (single author with no academic or industry affiliation, publishing in an obscure journal... a bunch of their publications are just plain linking vaccines to autism) and it is the one making the bold claims that allergens in US vaccines are not reported (it's actually citing the author's personal communications with officials for that). The very same book from which the misleading red-underlined quote was taken says much more, but not exactly backing that author up:

Also, even regarding US requirements for sensitizing substances reporting, the two sources quoted by Christian's answer seem pretty dubious (especially the latter--single author with no academic or industry affiliation, publishing in an obscure journal). The very same book from which the misleading red-underlined quote was taken says much more:

Also, even regarding US requirements for sensitizing substances reporting, the 2nd source quoted by Christian's answer seem pretty dubious (single author with no academic or industry affiliation, publishing in an obscure journal) and it is the one making the bold claims that allergens in US vaccines are not reported (it's actually citing the author's personal communications with officials for that). The very same book from which the misleading red-underlined quote was taken says much more:

As with other things related to medication approval (despite some people's wishes) there cannot be an entirely cookbook approach to these. It's clear from the above that despite the lack of strictly spelled out law/regulation requirements (like levels), the US regulators in conjunction with the manufacturers have provided sensible info on sensitizing substances in vaccines... the reporting of which is actually mandated in general terms in the federal regulations.

As with other things related to medication approval (despite some people's wishes) there cannot be an entirely cookbook approach to these. It's clear from the above that despite the lack of strictly spelled out law/regulation requirements (like levels), the US regulators in conjunction with the manufacturers have provided sensible info on sensitizing substances in vaccines... the reporting of which is actually mandated in general terms in the federal regulations. If there's something that's indeed spelled out as usually not reported (in the US)... that's DNA and endotoxins:

Bacterial and viral inactivation substances must be noted in the package label (21 CFR §610.61[q]). Residual bacterial or cellular culture components, such as antibiotics that are used during manufacture, as well as sensitizing substances (generally proteins), and other inactive ingredients when considered a safety factor, also must be noted in the label (21 CFR §610.61 [l][m][n]). There may be some overlap between these categories; however, they are grouped in this manner for convenience and to aid a discussion of these materials as they are affected by current regulations. Residual bacterial or cell culture components may be included in these categories, but other residuals, such as DNA and endotoxin, are not generally noted in labeling.