Examining animal testing for risk assessment: A WC-12 workshop report.

In toxicology and regulatory testing, the use of animal methods has been both a cornerstone and a subject of intense debate. To continue this discourse a panel and audience representing scientists from various sectors and countries convened at a workshop held during the 12th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences (WC-12). The ensuing discussion focused on the scientific and ethical considerations surrounding the necessity and responsibility of defending the creation of new animal data in regulatory testing. The primary aim was to foster an open dialogue between the panel members and the audience while encouraging diverse perspectives on the responsibilities and obligations of various stakeholders (including industry, regulatory bodies, technology developers, research scientists, and animal welfare NGOs) in defending the development and subsequent utilization of new animal data. This workshop summary report captures the key elements from this critical dialogue and collective introspection. It describes the intersection of scientific progress and ethical responsibility as all sectors seek to accelerate the pace of 21st century predictive toxicology and new approach methodologies (NAMs) for the protection of human health and the environment.

Use of new approach methodologies (NAMs) to meet regulatory requirements for the assessment of industrial chemicals and pesticides for effects on human health.

New approach methodologies (NAMs) are increasingly being used for regulatory decision making by agencies worldwide because of their potential to reliably and efficiently produce information that is fit for purpose while reducing animal use. This article summarizes the ability to use NAMs for the assessment of human health effects of industrial chemicals and pesticides within the United States, Canada, and European Union regulatory frameworks. While all regulations include some flexibility to allow for the use of NAMs, the implementation of this flexibility varies across product type and regulatory scheme. This article provides an overview of various agencies' guidelines and strategic plans on the use of NAMs, and specific examples of the successful application of NAMs to meet regulatory requirements. It also summarizes intra- and inter-agency collaborations that strengthen scientific, regulatory, and public confidence in NAMs, thereby fostering their global use as reliable and relevant tools for toxicological evaluations. Ultimately, understanding the current regulatory landscape helps inform the scientific community on the steps needed to further advance timely uptake of approaches that best protect human health and the environment.

A retrospective analysis of the added value of 1-year dog studies in pesticide human health risk assessments.

The 1-year dog toxicity study is no longer required by certain pesticide regulatory jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union. Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) examined its current requirement for this study to determine if it could be refined or eliminated. A retrospective analysis was conducted to examine the impact of the 1-year dog study on human health risk assessment. The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), a measure of the amount of a pesticide in food that can be ingested on a daily basis over a lifetime without an appreciable health risk, was the metric for this analysis. For 143 pesticides evaluated by the PMRA between 2008 and 2015, the supporting toxicology databases were examined to determine if other toxicology studies were protective of the findings in the 1-year dog study. When this criterion was not met, further investigation was undertaken to determine the potential impact of not having the 1-year dog study. For most of the pesticides, effect levels in the 1-year dog study were not substantially different from those in other toxicology studies, when considering factors such as dose-spacing and known experimental variability. The results of this analysis suggest that absence of the 1-year dog study would have minimal impact on the assessment of human health risk. Therefore, Health Canada's PMRA has removed the routine requirement for the 1-year dog study from its pesticide data requirements.