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.

The new normal chemical landscape: the future of risk assessment toward optimum consumer safety.

The further optimization of consumer safety through risk assessment of chemicals present in food will require adaptability and flexibility to utilize the accelerating developments in safety science and technology. New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are gaining traction as a systematic approach to support informed decision making in chemical risk assessment. The vision is to be able to predict risk more accurately, rapidly and efficiently. The opportunity exists now to use these approaches which requires a strategy to translate the science into future regulatory implementation. Here we discuss new insights obtained from three recent workshops on how to translate the science into future regulatory implementation. To assist the UK in this endeavor, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the scientific advisory committee on chemical toxicity (COT) have been developing a roadmap. In addition, we discuss how these new insights fit into the bigger picture of the new chemical landscape for better consumer safety and the importance of international harmonization.

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 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.

Opportunities and challenges related to saturation of toxicokinetic processes: Implications for risk assessment.

Top dose selection for repeated dose animal studies has generally focused on identification of apical endpoints, use of the limit dose, or determination of a maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The intent is to optimize the ability of toxicity tests performed in a small number of animals to detect effects for hazard identification. An alternative approach, the kinetically derived maximum dose (KMD), has been proposed as a mechanism to integrate toxicokinetic (TK) data into the dose selection process. The approach refers to the dose above which the systemic exposures depart from being proportional to external doses. This non-linear external-internal dose relationship arises from saturation or limitation of TK process(es), such as absorption or metabolism. The importance of TK information is widely acknowledged when assessing human health risks arising from exposures to environmental chemicals, as TK determines the amount of chemical at potential sites of toxicological responses. However, there have been differing opinions and interpretations within the scientific and regulatory communities related to the validity and application of the KMD concept. A multi-stakeholder working group, led by the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), was formed to provide an opportunity for impacted stakeholders to address commonly raised scientific and technical issues related to this topic and, more specifically, a weight of evidence approach is recommended to inform design and dose selection for repeated dose animal studies. Commonly raised challenges related to the use of TK data for dose selection are discussed, recommendations are provided, and illustrative case examples are provided to address these challenges or refute misconceptions.

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.

The EU chemicals strategy for sustainability: in support of the BfR position.

The EU chemicals strategy for sustainability (CSS) asserts that both human health and the environment are presently threatened and that further regulation is necessary. In a recent Guest Editorial, members of the German competent authority for risk assessment, the BfR, raised concerns about the scientific justification for this strategy. The complexity and interdependence of the networks of regulation of chemical substances have ensured that public health and wellbeing in the EU have continuously improved. A continuous process of improvement in consumer protection is clearly desirable but any initiative directed towards this objective must be based on scientific knowledge. It must not confound risk with other factors in determining policy. This conclusion is fully supported in the present Commentary including the request to improve both, data collection and the time-consuming and bureaucratic procedures that delay the publication of regulations.

Characterising vaping products in the United Kingdom: an analysis of Tobacco Products Directive notification data.

AIMS: To analyse content and emission data submitted by manufacturers for nicotine-containing vaping products in the United Kingdom (UK) in accordance with the European Union Tobacco Products Directive. DESIGN: Analysis of ingredient and emission data reported for all e-liquid-containing e-cigarettes, cartridges or refill containers notified to the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) from November 2016 to October 2017. SETTING: United Kingdom CASES: A total of 40 785 e-liquid containing products. MEASUREMENTS: The average number of ingredients per product, nicotine concentrations, frequency of occurrence ingredients and frequency and levels of chemical emissions. FINDINGS: Reports were not standardised in relation to units of measurement or constituent nomenclature. Products listed an average of 17 ingredients and 3.3% were reported not to contain nicotine. A total of 59% of products contained <12 mg nicotine per mL, and <1% were reported to have nicotine concentrations above the legal limit of 20 mg/mL. Over 1500 ingredients were reported, and other than nicotine the most commonly reported non-flavour ingredients were propylene glycol (97% of products) and glycerol (71%). The most common flavour ingredients were ethyl butyrate (42%), vanillin (35%) and ethyl maltol (33%). The most frequently reported chemical emissions were nicotine (65%), formaldehyde (48%) and acetaldehyde (40%). The reporting of the concentration of emissions was not standardised; emissions were reported in a format allowing analysis of median estimated concentration for between 13% and 100% of products for each reported emission. Most of the frequently reported emissions, other than nicotine, were present in median estimated concentrations below 1 µg/L of inspired air, and with the exception of nicotine, acrolein and diacetyl, at median levels below European Chemicals Agency Long Term Exposure and United States (US) Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits, where these were available. CONCLUSIONS: An analysis of reports to the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency by manufacturers of vaping products shows that (i) these products have a large range of ingredients and emissions, (ii) the reporting system is unstandardized in terms of reporting requirements, and (iii) for quantified emissions, median levels are for the most part below published safe limits for ambient air.

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.

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Toxicity and Human Health Review: Current State of Knowledge and Strategies for Informing Future Research.

Reports of environmental and human health impacts of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have greatly increased in the peer-reviewed literature. The goals of the present review are to assess the state of the science regarding toxicological effects of PFAS and to develop strategies for advancing knowledge on the health effects of this large family of chemicals. Currently, much of the toxicity data available for PFAS are for a handful of chemicals, primarily legacy PFAS such as perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate. Epidemiological studies have revealed associations between exposure to specific PFAS and a variety of health effects, including altered immune and thyroid function, liver disease, lipid and insulin dysregulation, kidney disease, adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes, and cancer. Concordance with experimental animal data exists for many of these effects. However, information on modes of action and adverse outcome pathways must be expanded, and profound differences in PFAS toxicokinetic properties must be considered in understanding differences in responses between the sexes and among species and life stages. With many health effects noted for a relatively few example compounds and hundreds of other PFAS in commerce lacking toxicity data, more contemporary and high-throughput approaches such as read-across, molecular dynamics, and protein modeling are proposed to accelerate the development of toxicity information on emerging and legacy PFAS, individually and as mixtures. In addition, an appropriate degree of precaution, given what is already known from the PFAS examples noted, may be needed to protect human health. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:606-630. © 2020 SETAC.

Recommendations for the conduct of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental health research (COSTER).

BACKGROUND: There are several standards that offer explicit guidance on good practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences; however, no similarly comprehensive set of recommendations has been published for SRs that focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. OBJECTIVES: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. METHODS: A draft set of recommendations was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and developed in a consensus process, which engaged international participation from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The consensus process consisted of a workshop, follow-up webinars, email discussion and bilateral phone calls. RESULTS: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) recommendations cover 70 SR practices across eight performance domains. Detailed explanations for specific recommendations are made for those identified by the authors as either being novel to SR in general, specific to the environmental health SR context, or potentially controversial to environmental health SR stakeholders. DISCUSSION: COSTER provides a set of recommendations that should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence, and advance discussion of a number of controversial aspects of conduct of EH SRs. Key recommendations include the management of conflicts of interest, handling of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. A process for advancing from COSTER's recommendations to developing a formal standard for EH SRs is also indicated.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine-disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine-disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower than S-EDCs. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea, and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity: how to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.