Interlaboratory Study to Evaluate a Testing Protocol for the Safety of Food Packaging Coatings.

According to European regulations, migration from food packaging must be safe. However, currently, there is no consensus on how to evaluate its safety, especially for non-intentionally added substances (NIAS). The intensive and laborious approach, involving identification and then quantification of all migrating substances followed by a toxicological evaluation, is not practical or feasible. In alignment with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) and the European Union (EU) guidelines on packaging materials, efforts are focused on combining data from analytics, bioassays and in silico toxicology approaches for the risk assessment of packaging materials. Advancement of non-targeted screening approaches using both analytical methods and in vitro bioassays is key. A protocol was developed for the chemical and biological screening of migrants from coated metal packaging materials. This protocol includes guidance on sample preparation, migrant simulation, chemical analysis using liquid chromatography (LC-MS) and validated bioassays covering endocrine activity, genotoxicity and metabolism-related targets. An inter-laboratory study was set-up to evaluate the consistency in biological activity and analytical results generated between three independent laboratories applying the developed protocol and guidance. Coated packaging metal panels were used in this case study. In general, the inter-laboratory chemical analysis and bioassay results displayed acceptable consistency between laboratories, but technical differences led to different data interpretations (e.g., cytotoxicity, cell passages, chemical analysis). The study observations with the greatest impact on the quality of the data and ultimately resulting in discrepancies in the results are given and suggestions for improvement of the protocol are made (e.g., sample preparation, chemical analysis approaches). Finally, there was agreement on the need for an aligned protocol to be utilized by qualified laboratories for chemical and biological analyses, following best practices and guidance for packaging safety assessment of intentionally added substances (IAS) and NIAS to avoid inconsistency in data and the final interpretation.

Update: Mode of action (MOA) for liver tumors induced by oral exposure to 1,4-dioxane.

Previous work has shown that the weight of evidence supports the hypothesis that 1,4-dioxane causes liver tumors in rodents through cytotoxicity and subsequent regenerative hyperplasia. Questions regarding a lack of concordant findings for this mode of action (MOA) in mice have not been resolved, however. In the current work, a reanalysis of data from two chronic mouse cancer bioassays on 1,4-dioxane, one 13-week mouse study, seven rat cancer bioassays, coupled with other data such as 1,4-dioxane's negative mutagenicity, its lack of up-regulated DNA repair, and the appearance of liver tumors with a high background incidence, support the conclusion that rodent liver tumors, including those in mice, are evoked by a regenerative hyperplasia MOA. The initiating event for this MOA is metabolic saturation of 1,4-dioxane. Above metabolic saturation, higher doses of the parent compound cause an ever increasing toxicity in the rodent liver as evidenced by higher blood levels of enzymes indicative of liver cell damage and associated histopathology that occurs in a dose and time related manner. Importantly, alternative modes of action can be excluded. The observed liver toxicity has a threshold in the dose scale at or below levels that saturate metabolism, and generally in the range of 9.6-42 mg/kg-day for rats and 57 to 66 mg/kg-day for mice. It follows that threshold approaches to the assessment of this chemical's toxicity are supported by the non-mutagenic, metabolic saturation kinetics, and cytotoxicity-generated regenerative repair information available for 1,4-dioxane promoted rodent liver tumors.

Mode of action analysis for liver tumors from oral 1,4-dioxane exposures and evidence-based dose response assessment.

1,4-Dioxane is found in consumer products and is used as a solvent in manufacturing. Studies in rodents show liver tumors to be consistently reported after chronic oral exposure. However, there were differences in the reporting of non-neoplastic lesions in the livers of rats and mice. In order to clarify these differences, a reread of mouse liver slides from the 1978 NCI bioassay on 1,4-dioxane in drinking water was conducted. This reread clearly identified dose-related non-neoplastic changes in the liver; specifically, a dose-related increase in the hypertrophic response of hepatocytes, followed by necrosis, inflammation and hyperplastic hepatocellular foci. 1,4-Dioxane does not cause point mutations, DNA repair, or initiation. However, it appears to promote tumors and stimulate DNA synthesis. Using EPA Guidelines (2005), the weight of the evidence suggests that 1,4-dioxane causes liver tumors in rats and mice through cytotoxicity followed by regenerative hyperplasia. Specific key events in this mode of action are identified. A Reference Dose (RfD) of 0.05mg/kgday is proposed to protect against regenerative liver hyperplasia based on a benchmark dose (BMD) approach. Based on this RfD, a maximum contaminant level goal of 350µg/L is proposed using a default relative source contribution for water of 20%.