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.

Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews: What journal editors can do.

Systematic reviews are fast increasing in prevalence in the toxicology and environmental health literature. However, how well these complex research projects are being conducted and reported is unclear. Since editors have an essential role in ensuring the scientific quality of manuscripts being published in their journals, a workshop was convened where editors, systematic review practitioners, and research quality control experts could discuss what editors can do to ensure the systematic reviews they publish are of sufficient scientific quality. Interventions were explored along four themes: setting standards; reviewing protocols; optimizing editorial workflows; and measuring the effectiveness of editorial interventions. In total, 58 editorial interventions were proposed. Of these, 26 were shortlisted for being potentially effective, and 5 were prioritized as short-term actions that editors could relatively easily take to improve the quality of published systematic reviews. Recent progress in improving systematic reviews is summarized, and outstanding challenges to further progress are highlighted.

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.

New approach methodologies (NAMs) for human-relevant biokinetics predictions. Meeting the paradigm shift in toxicology towards an animal-free chemical risk assessment

For almost fifteen years, the availability and regulatory acceptance of new approach methodologies (NAMs) to assess the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME/biokinetics) in chemical risk evaluations are a bottleneck. To enhance the field, a team of 24 experts from science, industry, and regulatory bodies, including new generation toxicologists, met at the Lorentz Centre in Leiden, The Netherlands. A range of possibilities for the use of NAMs for biokinetics in risk evaluations were formulated (for example to define species differences and human variation or to perform quantitative in vitro-in vivo extrapolations). To increase the regulatory use and acceptance of NAMs for biokinetics for these ADME considerations within risk evaluations, the development of test guidelines (protocols) and of overarching guidance documents is considered a critical step. To this end, a need for an expert group on biokinetics within the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to supervise this process was formulated. The workshop discussions revealed that method development is still required, particularly to adequately capture transporter mediated processes as well as to obtain cell models that reflect the physiology and kinetic characteristics of relevant organs. Developments in the fields of stem cells, organoids and organ-on-a-chip models provide promising tools to meet these research needs in the future.

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.

A mode-of-action ontology model for safety evaluation of chemicals: Outcome of a series of workshops on repeated dose toxicity.

Repeated dose toxicity evaluation aims at assessing the occurrence of adverse effects following chronic or repeated exposure to chemicals. Non-animal approaches have gained importance in the last decades because of ethical considerations as well as due to scientific reasons calling for more human-based strategies. A critical aspect of this challenge is linked to the capacity to cover a comprehensive set of interdependent mechanisms of action, link them to adverse effects and interpret their probability to be triggered in the light of the exposure at the (sub)cellular level. Inherent to its structured nature, an ontology addressing repeated dose toxicity could be a scientific and transparent way to achieve this goal. Additionally, repeated dose toxicity evaluation through the use of a harmonized ontology should be performed in a reproducible and consistent manner, while mimicking as accurately as possible human physiology and adaptivity. In this paper, the outcome of a series of workshops organized by Cosmetics Europe on this topic is reported. As such, this manuscript shows how experts set critical elements and ways of establishing a mode-of-action ontology model as a support to risk assessors aiming to perform animal-free safety evaluation of chemicals based on repeated dose toxicity data.

Influence of in Vitro Assay Setup on the Apparent Cytotoxic Potency of Benzalkonium Chlorides.

The nominal concentration is generally used to express concentration-effect relationships in in vitro toxicity assays. However, the nominal concentration does not necessarily represent the exposure concentration responsible for the observed effect. Surfactants accumulate at interphases and likely sorb to in vitro system components such as serum protein and well plate plastic. The extent of sorption and the consequences of this sorption on in vitro readouts is largely unknown for these chemicals. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the effect of sorption to in vitro components on the observed cytotoxic potency of benzalkonium chlorides (BAC) varying in alkyl chain length (6-18 carbon atoms, C6-18) in a basal cytotoxicity assay with the rainbow trout gill cell line (RTgill-W1). Cells were exposed for 48 h in 96-well plates to increasing concentration of BACs in exposure medium containing 0, 60 µM bovine serum albumin (BSA) or 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS). Before and after exposure, BAC concentrations in exposure medium were analytically determined. Based on freely dissolved concentrations at the end of the exposure, median effect concentrations (EC50) decreased with increasing alkyl chain length up to 14 carbons. For BAC with alkyl chains of 12 or more carbons, EC50's based on measured concentrations after exposure in supplement-free medium were up to 25-times lower than EC50's calculated using nominal concentrations. When BSA or FBS was added to the medium, a decrease in cytotoxic potency of up to 22 times was observed for BAC with alkyl chains of eight or more carbons. The results of this study emphasize the importance of expressing the in vitro readouts as a function of a dose metric that is least influenced by assay setup to compare assay sensitivities and chemical potencies.

A strategy for systemic toxicity assessment based on non-animal approaches: The Cosmetics Europe Long Range Science Strategy programme.

When performing safety assessment of chemicals, the evaluation of their systemic toxicity based only on non-animal approaches is a challenging objective. The Safety Evaluation Ultimately Replacing Animal Test programme (SEURAT-1) addressed this question from 2011 to 2015 and showed that further research and development of adequate tools in toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic are required for performing non-animal safety assessments. It also showed how to implement tools like thresholds of toxicological concern (TTCs) and read-across in this context. This paper shows a tiered scientific workflow and how each tier addresses the four steps of the risk assessment paradigm. Cosmetics Europe established its Long Range Science Strategy (LRSS) programme, running from 2016 to 2020, based on the outcomes of SEURAT-1 to implement this workflow. Dedicated specific projects address each step of this workflow, which is introduced here. It tackles the question of evaluating the internal dose when systemic exposure happens. The applicability of the workflow will be shown through a series of case studies, which will be published separately. Even if the LRSS puts the emphasis on safety assessment of cosmetic relevant chemicals, it remains applicable to any type of chemical.

Alternative approaches for identifying acute systemic toxicity: Moving from research to regulatory testing.

Acute systemic toxicity testing provides the basis for hazard labeling and risk management of chemicals. A number of international efforts have been directed at identifying non-animal alternatives for in vivo acute systemic toxicity tests. A September 2015 workshop, Alternative Approaches for Identifying Acute Systemic Toxicity: Moving from Research to Regulatory Testing, reviewed the state-of-the-science of non-animal alternatives for this testing and explored ways to facilitate implementation of alternatives. Workshop attendees included representatives from international regulatory agencies, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and industry. Resources identified as necessary for meaningful progress in implementing alternatives included compiling and making available high-quality reference data, training on use and interpretation of in vitro and in silico approaches, and global harmonization of testing requirements. Attendees particularly noted the need to characterize variability in reference data to evaluate new approaches. They also noted the importance of understanding the mechanisms of acute toxicity, which could be facilitated by the development of adverse outcome pathways. Workshop breakout groups explored different approaches to reducing or replacing animal use for acute toxicity testing, with each group crafting a roadmap and strategy to accomplish near-term progress. The workshop steering committee has organized efforts to implement the recommendations of the workshop participants.