A call for action on the development and implementation of new methodologies for safety assessment of chemical-based products in the EU - A short communication.

Safety assessment of chemicals and products in the European Union (EU) is based on decades of practice using primarily animal toxicity studies to model hazardous effects in humans. Nevertheless, there has been a long-standing ethical concern about using experimental animals. In addition, animal models may fail to predict adverse effects in humans. This has provided a strong motivation to develop and use new approach methodologies and other alternative sources of evidence. A key challenge for this is integration of evidence from different sources. This paper is a call for action with regard to development, validation, and implementation of modern safety assessment approaches for human health assessment by means of focused applied research and development with three strands: (a) to improve screening and priority setting, (b) to enhance and partially replace animal studies under the current regulatory schemes and eventually (c) to fully replace animal studies, while achieving at least the same level of protection. For this gradual but systematic replacement of animal studies, a long-term concerted and coordinated effort with clear goals is needed at EU level, as a societal and political choice, to plan and motivate research and innovation in regulatory safety assessment.

Analysis and reflection on the role of the 90-day oral toxicity study in European chemical risk assessment.

The 90-day toxicity study is one of the studies used in the safety assessment of food ingredients, medicines or other chemical substances. This paper reviews the current role of the 90-day oral toxicity study in European regulatory dossiers of chemicals by reviewing EU legislation and EU and OECD guidance documents. Regulatory provisions with regard to necessity, objectives and design of such 90-day toxicity studies vary between the different sectors addressed in this review. Most often the 90-day study is expected to be part of the standard test battery used for chemical risk assessment, without necessarily being a legal requirement and its objectives may vary between regulatory domains. Exceptions, when a 90-day study is not required are spelled out in the chemicals legislation and for food contact materials. The sectorial study design requirements of the 90-day toxicity study are very often embedded in the OECD TG 408 protocol. Differences in study objectives are not necessarily reflected in specific study designs. Considering the call for the reduction of using experimental animals for scientific purposes and the fact that a 90-day study may serve different purposes, consistency between the necessity to conduct such a study, its objectives and the study design to achieve these objectives may improve judicious use of laboratory animals. Thus there may be an opportunity to reflect and further optimise the design of in vivo toxicology studies, such as the 90-day study. This should be based on a systematic analysis of past studies and risk assessments.

Emerging technologies for food and drug safety.

Emerging technologies are playing a major role in the generation of new approaches to assess the safety of both foods and drugs. However, the integration of emerging technologies in the regulatory decision-making process requires rigorous assessment and consensus amongst international partners and research communities. To that end, the Global Coalition for Regulatory Science Research (GCRSR) in partnership with the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) hosted the seventh Global Summit on Regulatory Science (GSRS17) in Brasilia, Brazil on September 18-20, 2017 to discuss the role of new approaches in regulatory science with a specific emphasis on applications in food and medical product safety. The global regulatory landscape concerning the application of new technologies was assessed in several countries worldwide. Challenges and issues were discussed in the context of developing an international consensus for objective criteria in the development, application and review of emerging technologies. The need for advanced approaches to allow for faster, less expensive and more predictive methodologies was elaborated. In addition, the strengths and weaknesses of each new approach was discussed. And finally, the need for standards and reproducible approaches was reviewed to enhance the application of the emerging technologies to improve food and drug safety. The overarching goal of GSRS17 was to provide a venue where regulators and researchers meet to develop collaborations addressing the most pressing scientific challenges and facilitate the adoption of novel technical innovations to advance the field of regulatory science.

Scientific Opinion of the PPR Panel on the follow-up of the findings of the External Scientific Report 'Literature review of epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects'.

In 2013, EFSA published a comprehensive systematic review of epidemiological studies published from 2006 to 2012 investigating the association between pesticide exposure and many health outcomes. Despite the considerable amount of epidemiological information available, the quality of much of this evidence was rather low and many limitations likely affect the results so firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Studies that do not meet the 'recognised standards' mentioned in the Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009 are thus not suited for risk assessment. In this Scientific Opinion, the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues (PPR Panel) was requested to assess the methodological limitations of pesticide epidemiology studies and found that poor exposure characterisation primarily defined the major limitation. Frequent use of case-control studies as opposed to prospective studies was considered another limitation. Inadequate definition or deficiencies in health outcomes need to be avoided and reporting of findings could be improved in some cases. The PPR Panel proposed recommendations on how to improve the quality and reliability of pesticide epidemiology studies to overcome these limitations and to facilitate an appropriate use for risk assessment. The Panel recommended the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, where appropriate, of pesticide observational studies as useful methodology to understand the potential hazards of pesticides, exposure scenarios and methods for assessing exposure, exposure-response characterisation and risk characterisation. Finally, the PPR Panel proposed a methodological approach to integrate and weight multiple lines of evidence, including epidemiological data, for pesticide risk assessment. Biological plausibility can contribute to establishing causation.

Is scientific assessment a scientific discipline?: A reflection paper on EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority.

EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, was established in 2002 as the EU's independent risk assessment body for food and feed safety. This paper takes stock of what has been achieved and what challenges lie ahead. To do so, it first reviews scientific assessments conducted by EFSA from the perspective of a scientific experiment. This includes a hypothesis that is examined by scientific experts using existing evidence and employing agreed-upon assessment methods, the results of which are made public. Next, it considers a number of characteristics legitimising this work: quality, consistency, independence and impartiality, as well as transparency and openness. Other key considerations are relevance, evolving expectations and innovations, fitness-for-purpose and efficiency, along with sustainability of the system. By and large, the scientific assessment process in place at EFSA can be understood to mimic the conduct of a scientific experiment. However, being a regulatory support mechanism, it has some distinct characteristics. Therefore, its legitimising characteristics are not necessarily identical to those used in academic research. In conclusion, since its creation 15 years ago, EFSA has very much delivered on its mission. Whatever the achievements, the EU cannot rest on its laurels though.

Regulatory bioinformatics for food and drug safety.

"Regulatory Bioinformatics" strives to develop and implement a standardized and transparent bioinformatic framework to support the implementation of existing and emerging technologies in regulatory decision-making. It has great potential to improve public health through the development and use of clinically important medical products and tools to manage the safety of the food supply. However, the application of regulatory bioinformatics also poses new challenges and requires new knowledge and skill sets. In the latest Global Coalition on Regulatory Science Research (GCRSR) governed conference, Global Summit on Regulatory Science (GSRS2015), regulatory bioinformatics principles were presented with respect to global trends, initiatives and case studies. The discussion revealed that datasets, analytical tools, skills and expertise are rapidly developing, in many cases via large international collaborative consortia. It also revealed that significant research is still required to realize the potential applications of regulatory bioinformatics. While there is significant excitement in the possibilities offered by precision medicine to enhance treatments of serious and/or complex diseases, there is a clear need for further development of mechanisms to securely store, curate and share data, integrate databases, and standardized quality control and data analysis procedures. A greater understanding of the biological significance of the data is also required to fully exploit vast datasets that are becoming available. The application of bioinformatics in the microbiological risk analysis paradigm is delivering clear benefits both for the investigation of food borne pathogens and for decision making on clinically important treatments. It is recognized that regulatory bioinformatics will have many beneficial applications by ensuring high quality data, validated tools and standardized processes, which will help inform the regulatory science community of the requirements necessary to ensure the safe introduction and effective use of these applications.

Chemical Safety Assessment Using Read-Across: Assessing the Use of Novel Testing Methods to Strengthen the Evidence Base for Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Safety assessment for repeated dose toxicity is one of the largest challenges in the process to replace animal testing. This is also one of the proof of concept ambitions of SEURAT-1, the largest ever European Union research initiative on alternative testing, co-funded by the European Commission and Cosmetics Europe. This review is based on the discussion and outcome of a workshop organized on initiative of the SEURAT-1 consortium joined by a group of international experts with complementary knowledge to further develop traditional read-across and include new approach data. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the suggested strategy for chemical read-across is to show how a traditional read-across based on structural similarities between source and target substance can be strengthened with additional evidence from new approach data--for example, information from in vitro molecular screening, "-omics" assays and computational models--to reach regulatory acceptance. METHODS: We identified four read-across scenarios that cover typical human health assessment situations. For each such decision context, we suggested several chemical groups as examples to prove when read-across between group members is possible, considering both chemical and biological similarities. CONCLUSIONS: We agreed to carry out the complete read-across exercise for at least one chemical category per read-across scenario in the context of SEURAT-1, and the results of this exercise will be completed and presented by the end of the research initiative in December 2015.

A European survey of antimicrobial susceptibility among zoonotic and commensal bacteria isolated from food-producing animals.

OBJECTIVE: To study antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic bacteria isolated from food animals in different countries using uniform methodology. METHODS: Samples were taken at slaughter from chickens, pigs and cattle in four EU countries per host. Escherichia coli (indicator organism; n = 2118), Salmonella spp. (n = 271) and Campylobacter spp. (n = 1325) were isolated in national laboratories and MICs tested in a central laboratory against, where appropriate, ampicillin, cefepime, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin, chloramphenicol, erythromycin, gentamicin, nalidixic acid, streptomycin, tetracycline and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. RESULTS: Isolation rates were high for E. coli, low for Salmonella and intermediate for Campylobacter. MIC results showed resistance prevalence varied among compounds, hosts and countries. For E. coli and Salmonella, resistance to newer compounds (cefepime, cefotaxime, ciprofloxacin) was absent or low, but to older compounds (except gentamicin), resistance was variable and higher. E. coli isolates from Sweden showed low resistance, whereas among isolates from Spain (pigs), resistance to ampicillin, chloramphenicol, streptomycin, tetracycline and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole was higher; the UK, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Denmark were intermediate. For Campylobacter spp. isolates from chickens, nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin resistance was >30% in France and the Netherlands, >6% in the UK and zero in Sweden. Nalidixic acid resistance was high in cattle (20%-64%), whereas ciprofloxacin resistance was markedly lower in cattle, variable in pigs (3%-21%) and highest in Sweden. Generally, Campylobacter coli was more resistant than Campylobacter jejuni. CONCLUSION: Antimicrobial resistance among enteric organisms in food animals varied among countries, particularly for older antimicrobials, but resistance to newer compounds used to treat disease in humans was generally low.