RESUMEN
Many jurisdictions have regulatory frameworks that seek to reduce the effects of environmental exposures of anthropogenic chemicals on terrestrial wildlife (i.e., mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians). The frameworks apply for new and existing chemicals, including pesticides (prospective assessments), and to environmental contamination from releases (retrospective risk assessments). Relatively recently, there have been many scientific advances that could improve risk estimates for wildlife. Here, we briefly describe current regulations from North America (United States and Canada) and from Europe that include risk assessments for wildlife to ascertain whether they are conducive to the use of emerging science and new methods. We also provide examples where new and emerging science may be used to improve wildlife risk characterization and identify areas in need of future research. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:765-779. © 2024 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management © 2024 Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
Asunto(s)
Animales Salvajes , Exposición a Riesgos Ambientales , Humanos , Animales , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Contaminación Ambiental , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , MamíferosRESUMEN
The inability to quantitatively integrate scattered data regarding potential threats posed by the increasing total amount and diversity of chemical substances in our environment limits our ability to understand whether existing regulations and management actions sufficiently protect wildlife. Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses are great scientific tools to build upon the current push for accessibility under the Open Science and FAIR movements. Despite the potential of such integrative analyses, the emergence of innovative findings in wildlife ecology and ecotoxicology is still too rare relative to the potential that is hidden within the entirety of the available scattered data. To promote the reuse of wildlife ecotoxicology data, we propose the ATTAC workflow which comprises five key steps (Access, Transparency, Transferability, Add-ons, and Conservation sensitivity) along the chain of collecting, homogenizing, and integrating data for subsequent meta-analyses. The ATTAC workflow brings together guidelines supporting both the data prime movers and re-users. As such, the ATTAC workflow could promote an open and collaborative wildlife ecotoxicology able to reach a major objective in this applied field, namely, providing strong scientific support for regulations and management actions to protect and preserve wildlife species.
RESUMEN
Systemic toxicity testing forms the cornerstone for the safety evaluation of substances. Pressures to move from traditional animal models to novel technologies arise from various concerns, including: the need to evaluate large numbers of previously untested chemicals and new products (such as nanoparticles or cell therapies), the limited predictivity of traditional tests for human health effects, duration and costs of current approaches, and animal welfare considerations. The latter holds especially true in the context of the scheduled 2013 marketing ban on cosmetic ingredients tested for systemic toxicity. Based on a major analysis of the status of alternative methods (Adler et al., 2011) and its independent review (Hartung et al., 2011), the present report proposes a roadmap for how to overcome the acknowledged scientific gaps for the full replacement of systemic toxicity testing using animals. Five whitepapers were commissioned addressing toxicokinetics, skin sensitization, repeated-dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity testing. An expert workshop of 35 participants from Europe and the US discussed and refined these whitepapers, which were subsequently compiled to form the present report. By prioritizing the many options to move the field forward, the expert group hopes to advance regulatory science.