Risk assessment of nutrients: There must be a threshold for their effects.

Nutrients serve physiological functions in a dose-dependent manner and that needs to be recognized in risk assessment. An example of the consequences of not properly considering this can be seen in a recent assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA concluded in 2022 that the intake of added and free sugars should be "as low as possible in the context of a nutritionally adequate diet". That conclusion of EFSA is based on the effects on two surrogate endpoints for an adverse effect found in randomized controlled trials with high sugars intake levels: fasting glucose and fasting triglycerides. The lowest intake levels in these trials were around 10 energy% and at this intake level there were no adverse effects on the two outcomes. This indicates that the adverse effects of sugars have an observable threshold value for these two endpoints. The most appropriate interpretation from the vast amount of data is that currently no definitive conclusion can be drawn on the tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars. Therefore, EFSA's own guidance would lead to the conclusion that the available data do not allow the setting of an upper limit for added sugars and hence, that more robust data are required to identify the threshold value for intake of sugars.

A UK framework for the assessment and integration of different scientific evidence streams in chemical risk assessment.

BACKGROUND: Few methods are available for transparently combining different evidence streams for chemical risk assessment to reach an integrated conclusion on the probability of causation. Hence, the UK Committees on Toxicity (COT) and on Carcinogenicity (COC) have reviewed current practice and developed guidance on how to achieve this in a transparent manner, using graphical visualisation. METHODS/APPROACH: All lines of evidence, including toxicological, epidemiological, new approach methodologies, and mode of action should be considered, taking account of their strengths/weaknesses in their relative weighting towards a conclusion on the probability of causation. A qualitative estimate of the probability of causation is plotted for each line of evidence and a combined estimate provided. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: Guidance is provided on integration of multiple lines of evidence for causation, based on current best practice. Qualitative estimates of probability for each line of evidence are plotted graphically. This ensures a deliberative, consensus conclusion on likelihood of causation is reached. It also ensures clear communication of the influence of the different lines of evidence on the overall conclusion on causality. Issues on which advice from the respective Committees is sought varies considerably, hence the guidance is designed to be sufficiently flexible to meet this need.

A new approach to the classification of carcinogenicity.

Concern over substances that may cause cancer has led to various classification schemes to recognize carcinogenic threats and provide a basis to manage those threats. The least useful schemes have a binary choice that declares a substance carcinogenic or not. This overly simplistic approach ignores the complexity of cancer causation by considering neither how the substance causes cancer, nor the potency of that mode of action. Consequently, substances are classified simply as "carcinogenic", compromising the opportunity to properly manage these kinds of substances. It will likely be very difficult, if not impossible, to incorporate New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) into binary schemes. In this paper we propose a new approach cancer classification scheme that segregates substances by both mode of action and potency into three categories and, as a consequence, provides useful guidance in the regulation and management of substances with carcinogenic potential. Examples are given, including aflatoxin (category A), trichlorethylene (category B), and titanium dioxide (category C), which demonstrate the clear differentiation among these substances that generate appropriate levels of concern and management options.

Exploring the Potential of ToxCast Data in Supporting Read-Across for Evaluation of Food Chemical Safety.

The intention of this study was to determine the utility of high-throughput screening (HTS) data, as exemplified by ToxCast and Tox21, for application in toxicological read-across in food-relevant chemicals. Key questions were addressed on the extent to which the HTS data could provide information enabling (1) the elucidation of underlying bioactivities associated with apical toxicological outcomes, (2) the closing of existing toxicological data gaps, and (3) the definition of the boundaries of chemical space across which bioactivity could reliably be extrapolated. Results revealed that many biological targets apparently activated within the chemical groupings lack, at this time, validated toxicity pathway associations. Therefore, as means of providing proof-of-principle, a comparatively well-characterized end point-estrogenicity-was selected for evaluation. This was facilitated through the preparation of two exploratory case studies, focusing upon groupings of paraben-gallates and pyranone-type compounds (notably flavonoids). Within both, the HTS data were seen to reflect estrogenic potencies in a manner which broadly corresponded to established structure-activity group relationships, with parabens and flavonoids displaying greater estrogen receptor affinity than benzoate esters and alternative pyranone-containing molecules, respectively. As such, utility in the identification of out-of-domain compounds was demonstrated, indicating potential for application in addressing point (3) as detailed above.

The codification of hazard and its impact on the hazard versus risk controversy.

The long running controversy about the relative merits of hazard-based versus risk-based approaches has been investigated. There are three levels of hazard codification: level 1 divides chemicals into dichotomous bands of hazardous and non-hazardous; level 2 divides chemicals into bands of hazard based on severity and/or potency; and level 3 places each chemical on a continuum of hazard based on severity and/or potency. Any system which imposes compartments onto a continuum will give rise to issues at the boundaries, especially with only two compartments. Level 1 schemes are only justifiable if there is no variation in severity, or potency or if there is no threshold. This is the assumption implicit in GHS/EU classification for carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and mutagenicity. However, this assumption has been challenged. Codification level 2 hazard assessments offer a range of choices and reduce the built-in conflict inherent in the level 1 process. Level 3 assessments allow a full range of choices between the extremes and reduce the built-in conflict even more. The underlying reason for the controversy between hazard and risk is the use of level 1 hazard codification schemes in situations where there are ranges of severity and potency which require the use of level 2 or level 3 hazard codification. There is not a major difference between level 2 and level 3 codification, and they can both be used to select appropriate risk management options. Existing level 1 codification schemes should be reviewed and developed into level 2 schemes where appropriate.

Hazard identification, classification, and risk assessment of carcinogens: too much or too little? - Report of an ECETOC workshop.

The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) organized a workshop "Hazard Identification, Classification and Risk Assessment of Carcinogens: Too Much or Too Little?" to explore the scientific limitations of the current binary carcinogenicity classification scheme that classifies substances as either carcinogenic or not. Classification is often based upon the rodent 2-year bioassay, which has scientific limitations and is not necessary to predict whether substances are likely human carcinogens. By contrast, tiered testing strategies founded on new approach methodologies (NAMs) followed by subchronic toxicity testing, as necessary, are useful to determine if a substance is likely carcinogenic, by which mode-of-action effects would occur and, for non-genotoxic carcinogens, the dose levels below which the key events leading to carcinogenicity are not affected. Importantly, the objective is not for NAMs to mimic high-dose effects recorded in vivo, as these are not relevant to human risk assessment. Carcinogenicity testing at the "maximum tolerated dose" does not reflect human exposure conditions, but causes major disturbances of homeostasis, which are very unlikely to occur at relevant human exposure levels. The evaluation of findings should consider biological relevance and not just statistical significance. Using this approach, safe exposures to non-genotoxic substances can be established.

New ideas for non-animal approaches to predict repeated-dose systemic toxicity: Report from an EPAA Blue Sky Workshop.

The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) convened a 'Blue Sky Workshop' on new ideas for non-animal approaches to predict repeated-dose systemic toxicity. The aim of the Workshop was to formulate strategic ideas to improve and increase the applicability, implementation and acceptance of modern non-animal methods to determine systemic toxicity. The Workshop concluded that good progress is being made to assess repeated dose toxicity without animals taking advantage of existing knowledge in toxicology, thresholds of toxicological concern, adverse outcome pathways and read-across workflows. These approaches can be supported by New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) utilising modern molecular technologies and computational methods. Recommendations from the Workshop were based around the needs for better chemical safety assessment: how to strengthen the evidence base for decision making; to develop, standardise and harmonise NAMs for human toxicity; and the improvement in the applicability and acceptance of novel techniques. "Disruptive thinking" is required to reconsider chemical legislation, validation of NAMs and the opportunities to move away from reliance on animal tests. Case study practices and data sharing, ensuring reproducibility of NAMs, were viewed as crucial to the improvement of non-animal test approaches for systemic toxicity.

Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 1: A unified theory of carcinogenicity based on contemporary knowledge.

Developments in the understanding of the etiology of cancer have profound implications for the way the carcinogenicity of chemicals is addressed. This paper proposes a unified theory of carcinogenesis that will illuminate better ways to evaluate and regulate chemicals. In the last four decades, we have come to understand that for a cell and a group of cells to begin the process of unrestrained growth that is defined as cancer, there must be changes in DNA that reprogram the cell from normal to abnormal. Cancer is the consequence of DNA coding errors that arise either directly from mutagenic events or indirectly from cell proliferation especially if sustained. Chemicals that act via direct interaction with DNA can induce cancer because they cause mutations which can be carried forward in dividing cells. Chemicals that act via non-genotoxic mechanisms must be dosed to maintain a proliferative environment so that the steps toward neoplasia have time to occur. Chemicals that induce increased cellular proliferation can be divided into two categories: those which act by a cellular receptor to induce cellular proliferation, and those which act via non-specific mechanisms such as cytotoxicity. This knowledge has implications for testing chemicals for carcinogenic potential and risk management.

Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 3: Risk assessment of carcinogenic potential based on the current state of knowledge of carcinogenesis in humans.

Over 50 years, we have learned a great deal about the biology that underpins cancer but our approach to testing chemicals for carcinogenic potential has not kept up. Only a small number of chemicals has been tested in animal-intensive, time consuming, and expensive long-term bioassays in rodents. We now recommend a transition from the bioassay to a decision-tree matrix that can be applied to a broader range of chemicals, with better predictivity, based on the premise that cancer is the consequence of DNA coding errors that arise either directly from mutagenic events or indirectly from sustained cell proliferation. The first step is in silico and in vitro assessment for mutagenic (DNA reactive) activity. If mutagenic, it is assumed to be carcinogenic unless evidence indicates otherwise. If the chemical does not show mutagenic potential, the next step is assessment of potential human exposure compared to the threshold for toxicological concern (TTC). If potential human exposure exceeds the TTC, then testing is done to look for effects associated with the key characteristics that are precursors to the carcinogenic process, such as increased cell proliferation, immunosuppression, or significant estrogenic activity. Protection of human health is achieved by limiting exposures to below NOEALs for these precursor effects. The decision tree matrix is animal-sparing, cost effective, and in step with our growing knowledge of the process of cancer formation.

Chemical carcinogenicity revisited 2: Current knowledge of carcinogenesis shows that categorization as a carcinogen or non-carcinogen is not scientifically credible.

Developments in the understanding of the etiology of cancer have undermined the 1970s concept that chemicals are either "carcinogens" or "non-carcinogens". The capacity to induce cancer should not be classified in an inflexible binary manner as present (carcinogen) or absent (non-carcinogen). Chemicals may induce cancer by three categories of mode of action: direct interaction with DNA or DNA replication including DNA repair and epigenetics; receptor-mediated induction of cell division; and non-specific induction of cell division. The long-term rodent bioassay is neither appropriate nor efficient to evaluate carcinogenic potential for humans and to inform risk management decisions. It is of questionable predicitiveness, expensive, time consuming, and uses hundreds of animals. Although it has been embedded in practice for over 50 years, it has only been used to evaluate less than 5% of chemicals that are in use. Furthermore, it is not reproducible because of the probabilisitic nature of the process it is evaluating combined with dose limiting toxicity, dose selection, and study design. The modes of action that lead to the induction of tumors are already considered under other hazardous property categories in classification (Mutagenicity/Genotoxicity and Target Organ Toxicity); a separate category for Carcinogenicity is not required and provides no additional public health protection.

Benchmark dose (BMD) modeling: current practice, issues, and challenges.

Benchmark dose (BMD) modeling is now the state of the science for determining the point of departure for risk assessment. Key advantages include the fact that the modeling takes account of all of the data for a particular effect from a particular experiment, increased consistency, and better accounting for statistical uncertainties. Despite these strong advantages, disagreements remain as to several specific aspects of the modeling, including differences in the recommendations of the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Differences exist in the choice of the benchmark response (BMR) for continuous data, the use of unrestricted models, and the mathematical models used; these can lead to differences in the final BMDL. It is important to take confidence in the model into account in choosing the BMDL, rather than simply choosing the lowest value. The field is moving in the direction of model averaging, which will avoid many of the challenges of choosing a single best model when the underlying biology does not suggest one, but additional research would be useful into methods of incorporating biological considerations into the weights used in the averaging. Additional research is also needed regarding the interplay between the BMR and the UF to ensure appropriate use for studies supporting a lower BMR than default values, such as for epidemiology data. Addressing these issues will aid in harmonizing methods and moving the field of risk assessment forward.

Obfuscating transparency?

Several recent and prominent articles in Science and Nature deliberately mischaracterized the nature of genuine scientific evidence. Those articles take issue with the United States Environmental Protection Agency's recent proposal to structure its policies and rules only from studies with transparently published raw data. The articles claim it is an effort to obfuscate with transparency, by eliminating a host of studies not offering raw data. A remarkable declaration by a Science editorial is that properly trained experts can verify the scientific evidence of studies without access to raw data, We assert the Agency's proposal must be sustained. Transparency in reporting is a fundamental ethical imperative of objective scientific research justifying massive official regulations and policies. Putative hazards bereft of independent scientific evidence will continue to stoke public anxieties, calling for precautionary regulations and policies. These should rely not on spurious science but on transparent tradeoffs between the smallest exposures compatible with utility and with social perceptions of affordable precaution.

Scientific principles for the identification of endocrine-disrupting chemicals: a consensus statement.

Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, known as "endocrine disruptors" (EDs), trigger adverse health effects by disrupting the endogenous hormone system. There is need to harmonize guidance on the regulation of EDs, but this has been hampered by what appeared as a lack of consensus among scientists. This publication provides summary information about a consensus reached by a group of world-leading scientists that can serve as the basis for the development of ED criteria in relevant EU legislation. Twenty-three international scientists from different disciplines discussed principles and open questions on ED identification as outlined in a draft consensus paper at an expert meeting hosted by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany on 11-12 April 2016. Participants reached a consensus regarding scientific principles for the identification of EDs. The paper discusses the consensus reached on background, definition of an ED and related concepts, sources of uncertainty, scientific principles important for ED identification, and research needs. It highlights the difficulty in retrospectively reconstructing ED exposure, insufficient range of validated test systems for EDs, and some issues impacting on the evaluation of the risk from EDs, such as non-monotonic dose-response and thresholds, modes of action, and exposure assessment. This report provides the consensus statement on EDs agreed among all participating scientists. The meeting facilitated a productive debate and reduced a number of differences in views. It is expected that the consensus reached will serve as an important basis for the development of regulatory ED criteria.

Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based on hazard-identification have become outmoded and serve neither science nor society.

Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based solely on hazard-identification such as the IARC monograph process and the UN system adopted in the EU have become outmoded. They are based on a concept developed in the 1970s that chemicals could be divided into two classes: carcinogens and non-carcinogens. Categorization in this way places into the same category chemicals and agents with widely differing potencies and modes of action. This is how eating processed meat can fall into the same category as sulfur mustard gas. Approaches based on hazard and risk characterization present an integrated and balanced picture of hazard, dose response and exposure and allow informed risk management decisions to be taken. Because a risk-based decision framework fully considers hazard in the context of dose, potency, and exposure the unintended downsides of a hazard only approach are avoided, e.g., health scares, unnecessary economic costs, loss of beneficial products, adoption of strategies with greater health costs, and the diversion of public funds into unnecessary research. An initiative to agree upon a standardized, internationally acceptable methodology for carcinogen assessment is needed now. The approach should incorporate principles and concepts of existing international consensus-based frameworks including the WHO IPCS mode of action framework.

Towards microbial fermentation metabolites as markers for health benefits of prebiotics.

Available evidence on the bioactive, nutritional and putative detrimental properties of gut microbial metabolites has been evaluated to support a more integrated view of how prebiotics might affect host health throughout life. The present literature inventory targeted evidence for the physiological and nutritional effects of metabolites, for example, SCFA, the potential toxicity of other metabolites and attempted to determine normal concentration ranges. Furthermore, the biological relevance of more holistic approaches like faecal water toxicity assays and metabolomics and the limitations of faecal measurements were addressed. Existing literature indicates that protein fermentation metabolites (phenol, p-cresol, indole, ammonia), typically considered as potentially harmful, occur at concentration ranges in the colon such that no toxic effects are expected either locally or following systemic absorption. The endproducts of saccharolytic fermentation, SCFA, may have effects on colonic health, host physiology, immunity, lipid and protein metabolism and appetite control. However, measuring SCFA concentrations in faeces is insufficient to assess the dynamic processes of their nutrikinetics. Existing literature on the usefulness of faecal water toxicity measures as indicators of cancer risk seems limited. In conclusion, at present there is insufficient evidence to use changes in faecal bacterial metabolite concentrations as markers of prebiotic effectiveness. Integration of results from metabolomics and metagenomics holds promise for understanding the health implications of prebiotic microbiome modulation but adequate tools for data integration and interpretation are currently lacking. Similarly, studies measuring metabolite fluxes in different body compartments to provide a more accurate picture of their nutrikinetics are needed.

Systems toxicology: from basic research to risk assessment.

Systems Toxicology is the integration of classical toxicology with quantitative analysis of large networks of molecular and functional changes occurring across multiple levels of biological organization. Society demands increasingly close scrutiny of the potential health risks associated with exposure to chemicals present in our everyday life, leading to an increasing need for more predictive and accurate risk-assessment approaches. Developing such approaches requires a detailed mechanistic understanding of the ways in which xenobiotic substances perturb biological systems and lead to adverse outcomes. Thus, Systems Toxicology approaches offer modern strategies for gaining such mechanistic knowledge by combining advanced analytical and computational tools. Furthermore, Systems Toxicology is a means for the identification and application of biomarkers for improved safety assessments. In Systems Toxicology, quantitative systems-wide molecular changes in the context of an exposure are measured, and a causal chain of molecular events linking exposures with adverse outcomes (i.e., functional and apical end points) is deciphered. Mathematical models are then built to describe these processes in a quantitative manner. The integrated data analysis leads to the identification of how biological networks are perturbed by the exposure and enables the development of predictive mathematical models of toxicological processes. This perspective integrates current knowledge regarding bioanalytical approaches, computational analysis, and the potential for improved risk assessment.

The use of mode of action information in risk assessment: quantitative key events/dose-response framework for modeling the dose-response for key events.

The HESI RISK21 project formed the Dose-Response/Mode-of-Action Subteam to develop strategies for using all available data (in vitro, in vivo, and in silico) to advance the next-generation of chemical risk assessments. A goal of the Subteam is to enhance the existing Mode of Action/Human Relevance Framework and Key Events/Dose Response Framework (KEDRF) to make the best use of quantitative dose-response and timing information for Key Events (KEs). The resulting Quantitative Key Events/Dose-Response Framework (Q-KEDRF) provides a structured quantitative approach for systematic examination of the dose-response and timing of KEs resulting from a dose of a bioactive agent that causes a potential adverse outcome. Two concepts are described as aids to increasing the understanding of mode of action-Associative Events and Modulating Factors. These concepts are illustrated in two case studies; 1) cholinesterase inhibition by the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which illustrates the necessity of considering quantitative dose-response information when assessing the effect of a Modulating Factor, that is, enzyme polymorphisms in humans, and 2) estrogen-induced uterotrophic responses in rodents, which demonstrate how quantitative dose-response modeling for KE, the understanding of temporal relationships between KEs and a counterfactual examination of hypothesized KEs can determine whether they are Associative Events or true KEs.

A 21st century roadmap for human health risk assessment.

The Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI)-coordinated Risk Assessment in the 21st Century (RISK21) project was initiated to develop a scientific, transparent, and efficient approach to the evolving world of human health risk assessment, and involved over 120 participants from 12 countries, 15 government institutions, 20 universities, 2 non-governmental organizations, and 12 corporations. This paper provides a brief overview of the tiered RISK21 framework called the roadmap and risk visualization matrix, and articulates the core principles derived by RISK21 participants that guided its development. Subsequent papers describe the roadmap and matrix in greater detail. RISK21 principles include focusing on problem formulation, utilizing existing information, starting with exposure assessment (rather than toxicity), and using a tiered process for data development. Bringing estimates of exposure and toxicity together on a two-dimensional matrix provides a clear rendition of human safety and risk. The value of the roadmap is its capacity to chronicle the stepwise acquisition of scientific information and display it in a clear and concise fashion. Furthermore, the tiered approach and transparent display of information will contribute to greater efficiencies by calling for data only as needed (enough precision to make a decision), thus conserving animals and other resources.

Risk assessment in the 21st century: roadmap and matrix.

Abstract The RISK21 integrated evaluation strategy is a problem formulation-based exposure-driven risk assessment roadmap that takes advantage of existing information to graphically represent the intersection of exposure and toxicity data on a highly visual matrix. This paper describes in detail the process for using the roadmap and matrix. The purpose of this methodology is to optimize the use of prior information and testing resources (animals, time, facilities, and personnel) to efficiently and transparently reach a risk and/or safety determination. Based on the particular problem, exposure and toxicity data should have sufficient precision to make such a decision. Estimates of exposure and toxicity, bounded by variability and/or uncertainty, are plotted on the X- and Y-axes of the RISK21 matrix, respectively. The resulting intersection is a highly visual representation of estimated risk. Decisions can then be made to increase precision in the exposure or toxicity estimates or declare that the available information is sufficient. RISK21 represents a step forward in the goal to introduce new methodologies into 21st century risk assessment. Indeed, because of its transparent and visual process, RISK21 has the potential to widen the scope of risk communication beyond those with technical expertise.