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.

Quantitative risk assessment for skin sensitisation: consideration of a simplified approach for hair dye ingredients.

With the availability of the local lymph node assay, and the ability to evaluate effectively the relative skin sensitizing potency of contact allergens, a model for quantitative-risk-assessment (QRA) has been developed. This QRA process comprises: (a) determination of a no-expected-sensitisation-induction-level (NESIL), (b) incorporation of sensitization-assessment-factors (SAFs) reflecting variations between subjects, product use patterns and matrices, and (c) estimation of consumer-exposure-level (CEL). Based on these elements an acceptable-exposure-level (AEL) can be calculated by dividing the NESIL of the product by individual SAFs. Finally, the AEL is compared with the CEL to judge about risks to human health. We propose a simplified approach to risk assessment of hair dye ingredients by making use of precise experimental product exposure data. This data set provides firmly established dose/unit area concentrations under relevant consumer use conditions referred to as the measured-exposure-level (MEL). For that reason a direct comparison is possible between the NESIL with the MEL as a proof-of-concept quantification of the risk of skin sensitization. This is illustrated here by reference to two specific hair dye ingredients p-phenylenediamine and resorcinol. Comparison of these robust and toxicologically relevant values is therefore considered an improvement versus a hazard-based classification of hair dye ingredients.