The probable future of toxicology - probabilistic risk assessment.

Both because of the shortcomings of existing risk assessment methodologies, as well as newly available tools to predict hazard and risk with machine learning approaches, there has been an emerging emphasis on probabilistic risk assessment. Increasingly sophisticated AI models can be applied to a plethora of exposure and hazard data to obtain not only predictions for particular endpoints but also to estimate the uncertainty of the risk assessment outcome. This provides the basis for a shift from deterministic to more probabilistic approaches but comes at the cost of an increased complexity of the process as it requires more resources and human expertise. There are still challenges to overcome before a probabilistic paradigm is fully embraced by regulators. Based on an earlier white paper (Maertens et al., 2022), a workshop discussed the prospects, challenges and path forward for implementing such AI-based probabilistic hazard assessment. Moving forward, we will see the transition from categorized into probabilistic and dose-dependent hazard outcomes, the application of internal thresholds of toxicological concern for data-poor substances, the acknowledgement of user-friendly open-source software, a rise in the expertise of toxicologists required to understand and interpret artificial intelligence models, and the honest communication of uncertainty in risk assessment to the public.

Probabilistic risk assessment, initially from engineering, is applied in toxicology to understand chemical-related hazards and their consequences. In toxicology, uncertainties abound ­ unclear molecular events, varied proposed outcomes, and population-level assessments for issues like neurodevelopmental disorders. Establishing links between chemical exposures and diseases, especially rare events like birth defects, often demands extensive studies. Existing methods struggle with subtle effects or those affecting specific groups. Future risk assessments must address developmental disease origins, presenting challenges beyond current capabilities. The intricate nature of many toxicological processes, lack of consensus on mechanisms and outcomes, and the need for nuanced population-level assessments highlight the complexities in understanding and quantifying risks associated with chemical exposures in the field of toxicology.

Safety of botanical ingredients in personal care products/cosmetics.

The key issue of the safety assessment of botanical ingredients in personal care products (PCP) is the phytochemical characterisation of the plant source, data on contamination, adulteration and hazardous residues. The comparative approach used in the safety assessment of GM-plants may be applied to novel botanical PCP ingredients. Comparator(s) are the parent plant or varieties of the same species. Chemical grouping includes definition of chemical groups suitable for a read-across approach; it allows the estimation of toxicological endpoints on the basis of data from related substances (congeneric groups) with physical/chemical properties producing similar toxicities. The Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) and Dermal Sensitisation Threshold (DST) are tools for the assessment of trace substances or minor ingredients. The evaluation of skin penetration of substances present in human food is unnecessary, whereas mixtures may be assessed on the basis of physical/chemical properties of individual substances. Adverse dermal effects of botanicals include irritation, sensitisation, phototoxicity and immediate-type allergy. The experience from dietary supplements or herbal medicines showed that being natural is not equivalent to being safe. Pragmatic approaches for quality and safety standards of botanical ingredients are needed; consumer safety should be the first objective of conventional and botanical PCP ingredients.

Safety assessment of personal care products/cosmetics and their ingredients.

We attempt to review the safety assessment of personal care products (PCP) and ingredients that are representative and pose complex safety issues. PCP are generally applied to human skin and mainly produce local exposure, although skin penetration or use in the oral cavity, on the face, lips, eyes and mucosa may also produce human systemic exposure. In the EU, US and Japan, the safety of PCP is regulated under cosmetic and/or drug regulations. Oxidative hair dyes contain arylamines, the most chemically reactive ingredients of PCP. Although arylamines have an allergic potential, taking into account the high number of consumers exposed, the incidence and prevalence of hair dye allergy appears to be low and stable. A recent (2001) epidemiology study suggested an association of oxidative hair dye use and increased bladder cancer risk in consumers, although this was not confirmed by subsequent or previous epidemiologic investigations. The results of genetic toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity studies suggest that modern hair dyes and their ingredients pose no genotoxic, carcinogenic or reproductive risk. Recent reports suggest that arylamines contained in oxidative hair dyes are N-acetylated in human or mammalian skin resulting in systemic exposure to traces of detoxified, i.e. non-genotoxic, metabolites, whereas human hepatocytes were unable to transform hair dye arylamines to potentially carcinogenic metabolites. An expert panel of the International Agency on Research of Cancer (IARC) concluded that there is no evidence for a causal association of hair dye exposure with an elevated cancer risk in consumers. Ultraviolet filters have important benefits by protecting the consumer against adverse effects of UV radiation; these substances undergo a stringent safety evaluation under current international regulations prior to their marketing. Concerns were also raised about the safety of solid nanoparticles in PCP, mainly TiO(2) and ZnO in sunscreens. However, current evidence suggests that these particles are non-toxic, do not penetrate into or through normal or compromised human skin and, therefore, pose no risk to human health. The increasing use of natural plant ingredients in personal care products raised new safety issues that require novel approaches to their safety evaluation similar to those of plant-derived food ingredients. For example, the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) is a promising tool to assess the safety of substances present at trace levels as well as minor ingredients of plant-derived substances. The potential human systemic exposure to PCP ingredients is increasingly estimated on the basis of in vitro skin penetration data. However, new evidence suggests that the in vitro test may overestimate human systemic exposure to PCP ingredients due to the absence of metabolism in cadaver skin or misclassification of skin residues that, in vivo, remain in the stratum corneum or hair follicle openings, i.e. outside the living skin. Overall, today's safety assessment of PCP and their ingredients is not only based on science, but also on their respective regulatory status as well as other issues, such as the ethics of animal testing. Nevertheless, the record shows that today's PCP are safe and offer multiple benefits to quality of life and health of the consumer. In the interest of all stakeholders, consumers, regulatory bodies and producers, there is an urgent need for an international harmonization on the status and safety requirements of these products and their ingredients.