Rethinking chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity assessment for agrochemicals project (ReCAAP): A reporting framework to support a weight of evidence safety assessment without long-term rodent bioassays.

Rodent cancer bioassays have been long-required studies for regulatory assessment of human cancer hazard and risk. These studies use hundreds of animals, are resource intensive, and certain aspects of these studies have limited human relevance. The past 10 years have seen an exponential growth of new technologies with the potential to effectively evaluate human cancer hazard and risk while reducing, refining, or replacing animal use. To streamline and facilitate uptake of new technologies, a workgroup comprised of scientists from government, academia, non-governmental organizations, and industry stakeholders developed a framework for waiver rationales of rodent cancer bioassays for consideration in agrochemical safety assessment. The workgroup used an iterative approach, incorporating regulatory agency feedback, and identifying critical information to be considered in a risk assessment-based weight of evidence determination of the need for rodent cancer bioassays. The reporting framework described herein was developed to support a chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study waiver rationale, which includes information on use pattern(s), exposure scenario(s), pesticidal mode-of-action, physicochemical properties, metabolism, toxicokinetics, toxicological data including mechanistic data, and chemical read-across from similar registered pesticides. The framework could also be applied to endpoints other than chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity, and for chemicals other than agrochemicals.

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.