Examining the regulatory value of multi-route mammalian acute systemic toxicity studies

Regulatory information requirements for pesticides call for submission of acute systemic toxicity data for up to three different exposure routes (oral, dermal, inhalation) for both active ingredients and formulated products. Similar multi-route testing is required in the European Union and elsewhere for industrial chemicals. To determine the value of acute toxicity testing by more than one route, oral-dermal and oral-inhalation concordances among regulatory classifications were examined for large data sets of chemicals and pesticide active ingredients. Across all sectors examined, oral acute toxicity classifications for pure/active substances were more severe than those derived from dermal data in more than 98% of cases, which calls into question the value of routine dermal route testing for acute toxicity. Oral classifications were equivalent to or more severe than for the inhalation route for 83% of industrial chemicals and for 48% of pesticides examined.JRC.I.2 - Validation of Alternative Method

A Modular One-Generation Reproduction Study as a Flexible Testing System for Regulatory Safety Assessment

The European Union’s Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) legislation mandates testing and evaluation of approximately 30,000 existing substances within a short period of time, beginning with the most widely used “high production volume” (HPV) chemicals. REACH testing requirements for the roughly 3000 HPV chemicals specify three separate tests for reproductive toxicity: two developmental toxicity studies on different animal species (OECD Test Guideline 414) and a two-generation reproduction toxicity study (OECD TG 416). These studies are highly costly in both economic and animal welfare terms. OECD TG 416 is a fertility study intended to evaluate reproductive performance of animals in the P and F1-generations following repeated exposure to a test substance. It can also be used to detect adverse effects on structural and functional development. Thus, it has conventionally been preferred to the one-generation study (OECD TG 415). Recently, the Agricultural Chemical Safety Assessment (ACSA) Technical Committee of the ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) proposed that routine two-generation studies could in most cases be replaced with an “enhanced” one-generation study (Reuter et al. [1]). The flexible design proposed by HESI-ACSA allows for the addition of one or more specialised modules, if triggered (e.g. production of a second generation or the investigation of classical developmental toxicity or developmental neuro- or immunotoxicity). Significantly, however, the HESI-ACSA proposal was designed for use in the safety assessment of pesticidal, as opposed to industrial, chemicals. Thus for the purposes of REACH, a streamlined one-generation study that also examines structural development would be the most efficient means of addressing current information requirements for HPV chemicals. This study represents a flexible testing system that can be modified to meet regulatory needs in a variety of sectors

Levels of Citation of Nonhuman Animal Studies Conducted at a Canadian Research Hospital

The publication of scientific articles that receive few or no citations raises questions of the appropriate use of resources as well as ethics. In the case of animal research, the ethics issue extends beyond human patients to nonhuman animals, as the research subjects them to pain and, typically, to death. This study is a citation analysis of animal research conducted at Toronto\u27s Hospital for Sick Children (HSC). Of the 594 publications (1990 to 1995) on animal research by affiliates of HSC, 29% received Iower than 10 citations in a 10-year period. We compare the research history of 13 best and 13 worst HSC scientists. Worst researchers continue to do infrequently cited research. Recommendations indicate how institutions and researchers can become more effective and accountable

Act on the Registration and Evaluation of Chemicals (K-REACH) and replacement, reduction or refinement best practices

Objectives - Korea’s Act on the Registration and Evaluation of Chemicals (K-REACH) was enacted for the protection of human health and the environment in 2015. Considering that about 2000 new substances are introduced annually across the globe, the extent of animal testing requirement could be overwhelming unless regulators and companies work proactively to institute and enforce global best practices to replace, reduce or refine animal use. In this review, the way to reduce the animal use for K-REACH is discussed. Methods - Background of the enforcement of the K-REACH and its details was reviewed along with the papers and regulatory documents regarding the limitation of animal experiments and its alternatives in order to discuss the regulatory adoption of alternative tests. Results - Depending on the tonnage of the chemical used, the data required ranges from acute and other short-term studies for a single exposure route to testing via multiple exposure routes and costly, longer-term studies such as a full two-generation reproducibility toxicity. The European Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals regulation provides for mandatory sharing of vertebrate test data to avoid unnecessary duplication of animal use and test costs, and obligation to revise data requirements and test guidelines “as soon as possible” after relevant, validated replacement, reduction or refinement (3R) methods become available. Furthermore, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development actively accepts alternative animal tests and 3R to chemical toxicity tests. Conclusions - Alternative tests which are more ethical and efficient than animal experiments should be widely used to assess the toxicity of chemicals for K-REACH registration. The relevant regulatory agencies will have to make efforts to actively adopt and uptake new alternative tests and 3R to K-REACH

Lessons from Toxicology: Developing a 21st‑Century Paradigm for Medical Research

Biomedical developments in the 21st century provide an unprecedented opportunity to gain a dynamic systems-level and human-specific understanding of the causes and pathophysiologies of disease. This understanding is a vital need, in view of continuing failures in health research, drug discovery, and clinical translation. The full potential of advanced approaches may not be achieved within a 20th-century conceptual framework dominated by animal models. Novel technologies are being integrated into environmental health research and are also applicable to disease research, but these advances need a new medical research and drug discovery paradigm to gain maximal benefits. We suggest a new conceptual framework that repurposes the 21st-century transition underway in toxicology. Human disease should be conceived as resulting from integrated extrinsic and intrinsic causes, with research focused on modern human-specific models to understand disease pathways at multiple biological levels that are analogous to adverse outcome pathways in toxicology. Systems biology tools should be used to integrate and interpret data about disease causation and pathophysiology. Such an approach promises progress in overcoming the current roadblocks to understanding human disease and successful drug discovery and translation. A discourse should begin now to identify and consider the many challenges and questions that need to be solved

Cross-Sector Review of Drivers and Available 3Rs Approaches for Acute Systemic Toxicity Testing

Acute systemic toxicity studies are carried out in many sectors in which synthetic chemicals are manufactured or used and are among the most criticized of all toxicology tests on both scientific and ethical grounds. A review of the drivers for acute toxicity testing within the pharmaceutical industry led to a paradigm shift whereby in vivo acute toxicity data are no longer routinely required in advance of human clinical trials. Based on this experience, the following review was undertaken to identify (1) regulatory and scientific drivers for acute toxicity testing in other industrial sectors, (2) activities aimed at replacing, reducing, or refining the use of animals, and (3) recommendations for future work in this area

Humane Society International’s Global Campaign to End Animal Testing

The Research & Toxicology Department of Humane Society International (HSI) operates a multifaceted and science-driven global programme aimed at ending the use of animals in toxicity testing and research. The key strategic objectives include: a) ending cosmetics animal testing worldwide, via the multinational Be Cruelty-Free campaign; b) achieving near-term reductions in animal testing requirements through revision of product sector regulations; and c) advancing humane science by exposing failing animal models of human disease and shifting science funding toward human biology-based research and testing tools fit for the 21st century. HSI was instrumental in ensuring the implementation of the March 2013 European sales ban for newly animal-tested cosmetics, in achieving the June 2013 cosmetics animal testing ban in India as well as major cosmetics regulatory policy shifts in China and South Korea, and in securing precedent-setting reductions in in vivo data requirements for pesticides in the EU through the revision of biocides and plant protection product regulations, among others. HSI is currently working to export these life-saving measures to more than a dozen industrial and emerging economies

Ideology Masquerading as Science: The Case of Endocrine Disrupter Screening Programmes

The global move to develop novel testing methods and strategies to identify suspected endocrine disrupting chemicals offers a unique opportunity to move away from traditional animal testing paradigms in this new area of regulatory concern. Regrettably, the programmes under development, both in the USA and internationally through the OECD, have thus far failed to consider in vitro and other non-animal test methods as more than “pre-screening” or “priority-setting” tools in a larger, animal-based testing strategy. Validation efforts to date have focused almost exclusively on the modification of existing animal tests to detect “endocrine effects”, with no demonstrable effort to promote international coordination or support for the development and validation of relevant non-animal test systems. The current orientation in these programmes reflects ideological, rather than scientific, imperatives, and undermines the commitments of both the US government and the OECD with respect to the Three Rs and the minimisation of animal testing. </jats:p