Grouping of esters of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid for hazard assessment.

Hazardous properties of a large number of esters of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid (parabens) have been proposed by ECHA to be assessed as a group. We recommend to restrict the grouping approach to short chain esters, i.e. methyl, ethyl, propyl and butyl paraben which are very similar in chemical structures, physicochemical properties, toxicokinetics, and hazardous properties. While these parabens show a weak estrogenicity in some in vitro or in vivo screening assays, they do not induce estrogen-receptor-mediated adverse effects in intact animals. Therefore, there is no support regarding classification and labeling of endocrine disruption or reproductive toxicity of these parabens.

US regulations to curb alleged cancer causes are ineffectual and compromised by scientific, constitutional and ethical violations.

The 1958 Delaney amendment to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act prohibited food additives causing cancer in animals by appropriate tests. Regulators responded by adopting chronic lifetime cancer tests in rodents, soon challenged as inappropriate, for they led to very inconsistent results depending on the subjective choice of animals, test design and conduct, and interpretive assumptions. Presently, decades of discussions and trials have come to conclude it is impossible to translate chronic animal data into verifiable prospects of cancer hazards and risks in humans. Such conclusion poses an existential crisis for official agencies in the US and abroad, which for some 65 years have used animal tests to justify massive regulations of alleged human cancer hazards, with aggregated costs of $trillions and without provable evidence of public health advantages. This article addresses suitable remedies for the US and potentially worldwide, by critically exploring the practices of regulatory agencies vis-á-vis essential criteria for validating scientific evidence. According to this analysis, regulations of alleged cancer hazards and risks have been and continue to be structured around arbitrary default assumptions at odds with basic scientific and legal tests of reliable evidence. Such practices raise a manifold ethical predicament for being incompatible with basic premises of the US Constitution, and with the ensuing public expectations of testable truth and transparency from government agencies. Potential remedies in the US include amendments to the US Administrative Procedures Act, preferably requiring agencies to justify regulations compliant with the Daubert opinion of the Daubert ruling of the US Supreme Court, which codifies the criteria defining reliable scientific evidence. International reverberations are bound to follow what remedial actions may be taken in the US, the origin of current world regulatory procedures to control alleged cancer causing agents.

Is the EU chemicals strategy for sustainability a green deal?

A fully integrated Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) in respect of chemicals is crucial and must include: • An objective evaluation of the present situation including impacts of 'chemicals of concern' throughout their life cycle, that incorporates sustainability issues. • A framework that facilitates innovation of chemistry-based approaches to tackle each of the key sustainability issues. The EU CSS only addresses adverse impacts and mainly focusses on one aspect of risk assessment, the hazard to humans from individual industrial chemicals. The proposal removes consideration of the nature and amount of exposure, which is a critical determinant of risk. It can be presumed that this is solely to simplify, and hence speed up, regulatory decisions thereby enabling more chemicals to be assessed. The linkage of this proposed approach to address any of the major sustainability issues, such as environmental pollutants is obscure. For example, the well-recognised environmental problems caused by polymers such as plastics are not considered. The proposed change in the assessment methodology lacks any scientific justification and fails to address the sustainability issues the EU and the rest of the world are facing. The authors critically discuss a comprehensive innovative evaluation methodology for the impact of chemicals.

Eighth pharmacologic-historical forum.

SCOPE, HISTORICAL OVERVIEW AND PERSPECTIVES: Athineos Philippu, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Innsbruck, Austria The eighth pharmacologic-historical Forum was held online in 2022 in Bonn during the Meeting of the DGPT. In this forum the personalities of Hans Dengler, Paul Martini, Manfred Göthert, and Rudolf Buchheim were honoured by describing their lives and scientific achievements.

The BlueScreen HC assay to predict the genotoxic potential of fragrance materials.

BlueScreen HC is a mammalian cell-based assay for measuring the genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of chemical compounds and mixtures. The BlueScreen HC assay has been utilized at the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials in a safety assessment program as a screening tool to prioritize fragrance materials for higher-tier testing, as supporting evidence when using a read-across approach, and as evidence to adjust the threshold of toxicological concern. Predictive values for the BlueScreen HC assay were evaluated based on the ability of the assay to predict the outcome of in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity and chromosomal damage genotoxicity assays. A set of 371 fragrance materials was assessed in the BlueScreen HC assay along with existing or newly generated in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity data. Based on a weight-of-evidence approach, the majority of materials in the data set were deemed negative and concluded not to have the potential to be genotoxic, while only a small proportion of materials were determined to show genotoxic effects in these assays. Analysis of the data set showed a combination of high positive agreement but low negative agreement between BlueScreen HC results, in vitro regulatory genotoxicity assays, and higher-tier test results. The BlueScreen HC assay did not generate any false negatives, thereby providing robustness when utilizing it as a high-throughput screening tool to evaluate the large inventory of fragrance materials. From the perspective of protecting public health, it is desirable to have no or minimal false negatives, as a false-negative result may incorrectly indicate the lack of a genotoxicity hazard. However, the assay did have a high percentage of false-positive results, resulting in poor positive predictivity of the in vitro genotoxicity test battery outcome. Overall, the assay generated 100% negative predictivity and 3.9% positive predictivity. In addition to the data set of 371 fragrance materials, 30 natural complex substances were evaluated for BlueScreen HC, Ames, and in vitro micronucleus assay, and a good correlation in all three assays was observed. Overall, while a positive result may have to be further investigated, these findings suggest that the BlueScreen HC assay can be a valuable screening tool to detect the genotoxic potential of fragrance materials and mixtures.

Assessment of the genotoxic potential of mintlactone.

Mintlactone (chemical name 3,6-dimethyl-5,6,7,7a-tetrahydro-1-benzofuran-2(4H)-one, CAS Number 13341-72-5) is a fragrance and flavor ingredient with reported uses in many different cosmetics, personal care, and household products. In order to evaluate the genotoxic potential of mintlactone, in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity tests were conducted. Results from bacterial mutagenicity tests varied across different batches of differing purity with positive results observed in TA98 only. An in vivo comet assay was also considered to be positive in livers of female mice but negative in male mice. In contrast, in vitro and in vivo micronucleus tests, as well as 3D skin comet/micronucleus tests, were negative, indicating no chromosomal or DNA damage. The underlying causes for these contradictory results are not clear. It appears that the purity and/or stability of the test material may be an issue. In the absence of dependable scientific information on the purity and/or storage stability of mintlactone, its safety for use as a fragrance ingredient cannot be substantiated.

The EU chemicals strategy for sustainability: in support of the BfR position.

The EU chemicals strategy for sustainability (CSS) asserts that both human health and the environment are presently threatened and that further regulation is necessary. In a recent Guest Editorial, members of the German competent authority for risk assessment, the BfR, raised concerns about the scientific justification for this strategy. The complexity and interdependence of the networks of regulation of chemical substances have ensured that public health and wellbeing in the EU have continuously improved. A continuous process of improvement in consumer protection is clearly desirable but any initiative directed towards this objective must be based on scientific knowledge. It must not confound risk with other factors in determining policy. This conclusion is fully supported in the present Commentary including the request to improve both, data collection and the time-consuming and bureaucratic procedures that delay the publication of regulations.

Bruce Nathan Ames - Paradigm shifts inside the cancer research revolution.

Dr. Bruce Ames turned 92 on December 16, 2020. He considers his most recent work linking adequate consumption of 30 known vitamins and minerals with successful aging to be his most important contribution. With the passage of time, it is not uncommon for the accomplishments of a well-known scientist to undergo a parsimonious reductionism in the public mind - Pasteur's vaccine, Mendel's peas, Pavlov's dogs, Ames' test. Those of us in the research generation subsequent to Dr. Ames' are undoubtedly affected by our own unconscious tendencies toward accepting the outstanding achievements of the past as commonplace. In doing so, seminal advances made by earlier investigators are often inadvertently subsumed into common knowledge. But having followed Ames' work since the mid-1970s, we are cognizant that the eponymous Ames Test is but a single chapter in a long and rich narrative. That narrative begins with Ames' classic studies on the histidine operon of Salmonella, for which he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. A summary of the historical progression of the understanding of chemical carcinogenesis to which Ames and his colleagues contributed is provided. Any summary of a topic as expansive and complex as the ongoing unraveling of the mechanisms underlying chemical carcinogenesis will only touch upon some of the major conceptual advances to which Ames and his colleagues contributed. We hope that scientists of all ages familiar with Ames only through the eponymous Ames Test will further investigate the historical progression of the conceptualization of cancer caused by chemical exposure. As the field of chemical carcinogenesis gradually moves away from primary reliance on animal testing to alternative protocols under the rubric of New Approach Methodologies (NAM) an understanding of where we have been might help to guide where we should go.

Updating exposure assessment for skin sensitization quantitative risk assessment for fragrance materials.

In 2008, a proposal for assessing the risk of induction of skin sensitization to fragrance materials Quantitative Risk Assessment 1 (QRA1) was published. This was implemented for setting maximum limits for fragrance materials in consumer products. However, there was no formal validation or empirical verification after implementation. Additionally, concerns remained that QRA1 did not incorporate aggregate exposure from multiple product use and included assumptions, e.g. safety assessment factors (SAFs), that had not been critically reviewed. Accordingly, a review was undertaken, including detailed re-evaluation of each SAF together with development of an approach for estimating aggregate exposure of the skin to a potential fragrance allergen. This revision of QRA1, termed QRA2, provides an improved method for establishing safe levels for sensitizing fragrance materials in multiple products to limit the risk of induction of contact allergy. The use of alternative non-animal methods is not within the scope of this paper. Ultimately, only longitudinal clinical studies can verify the utility of QRA2 as a tool for the prevention of contact allergy to fragrance materials.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine-disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine-disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower than S-EDCs. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea, and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity: how to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.