From Pipeline to Plant Protection Products: Using New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in Agrochemical Safety Assessment.

The human population will be approximately 9.7 billion by 2050, and food security has been identified as one of the key issues facing the global population. Agrochemicals are an important tool available to farmers that enable high crop yields and continued access to healthy foods, but the average new agrochemical active ingredient takes more than ten years, 350 million dollars, and 20,000 animals to develop and register. The time, monetary, and animal costs incentivize the use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in early-stage screening to prioritize chemical candidates. This review outlines NAMs that are currently available or can be adapted for use in early-stage screening agrochemical programs. It covers new in vitro screens that are on the horizon in key areas of regulatory concern. Overall, early-stage screening with NAMs enables the prioritization of development for agrochemicals without human and environmental health concerns through a more directed, agile, and iterative development program before animal-based regulatory testing is even considered.

GARD™skin and GARD™potency: A proof-of-concept study investigating applicability domain for agrochemical formulations.

Several New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) for hazard assessment of skin sensitisers have been formally validated. However, data regarding their applicability on certain product classes are limited. The purpose of this project was to provide initial evidence on the applicability domain of GARD™skin and GARD™potency for the product class of agrochemical formulations. For this proof of concept, 30 liquid and 12 solid agrochemical formulations were tested in GARDskin for hazard predictions. Formulations predicted as sensitisers were further evaluated in the GARDpotency assay to determine GHS skin sensitisation category. The selected formulations were of product types, efficacy groups and sensitisation hazard classes representative of the industry's products. The performance of GARDskin was estimated by comparing results to existing in vivo animal data. The overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 76.2% (32/42), 85.0% (17/20), and 68.2% (15/22), respectively, with the predictivity for liquid formulations being slightly higher compared to the solid formulations. GARDpotency correctly subcategorized 14 out of the 17 correctly predicted sensitisers. Lack of concordance was justifiable by compositional or borderline response analysis. In conclusion, GARDskin and GARDpotency showed satisfactory performance in this initial proof-of-concept study, which supports consideration of agrochemical formulations being within the applicability domain of the test methods.

Use of guinea pig data to obtain starting points for skin sensitisation risk assessment - A commentary.

The increasing drive to understand the likelihood of skin sensitisation from plant protection products (PPPs) in workers and the general public has resulted in recent initiatives to establish a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) methodology applicable to these products and their exposure scenarios. The effective evaluation of skin sensitising substances requires not only the identification of that toxicological hazard, but also determination of relative sensitising potency. Typically, this has been achieved by interpretation of local lymph node assay (LLNA) dose response data, delivering what is known as the EC3 value. This permitted regulatory division of skin sensitisers into defined potency sub-categories, but more importantly enabled derivation of a no expected sensitisation induction level (NESIL) as the point of departure for QRA. However, for many existing substances there is no LLNA data, only older guinea pig results exist. To avoid additional (in vivo) testing, an approach has been outlined to employ guinea pig data and existing regulatory guidelines on the determination of potency sub-categorisation to provide a guinea pig based NESIL. The approach adopts a conservative extrapolation from LLNA NESIL benchmarks to deliver points of departure as the basis for the type of QRA process already in successful use by other industries.

Retrospective evaluation of the eye irritation potential of agrochemical formulations.

Multiple in vitro eye irritation methods have been developed and adopted as OECD health effects test guidelines. However, for predicting the ocular irritation/damage potential of agrochemical formulations there is an applicability domain knowledge gap for most of the methods. To overcome this gap, a retrospective evaluation of 192 agrochemical formulations with in vivo (OECD TG 405) and in vitro (OECD TG 437, 438, and/or 492) data was conducted to determine if the in vitro methods could accurately assign United Nations Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) eye irritation hazard classifications. In addition, for each formulation the eye irritation classification was derived from the classification of the contained hazardous ingredients and their respective concentration in the product using the GHS concentration threshold (CT) approach. The results herein suggest that the three in vitro methods and the GHS CT approach were highly predictive of formulations that would not require GHS classification for eye irritation. Given most agrochemical formulations fall into this category, methods that accurately identify non-classified agrochemical formulations could significantly reduce the use of animals for this endpoint.

New supporting data to guide the use of evident toxicity in acute oral toxicity studies (OECD TG 420).

Currently there are three test guidelines (TG) for acute oral toxicity studies of substances or mixtures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). TG 423 and TG 425 use lethality as an endpoint, while TG 420 replaces death with 'evident toxicity', defined as clear signs that exposure to a higher dose would result in death. However, the perceived subjectivity of 'evident toxicity' may be preventing wider use of TG 420. To address this, the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) and the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) collaborated to provide recommendations on the recognition of 'evident toxicity'. Historical data from acute oral toxicity studies were analysed for clinical signs at the lower dose that could have predicted death at the higher dose. Several signs including ataxia, laboured respiration, and eyes partially closed, alone or in combination, are highly predictive. Others such as lethargy, decreased respiration, and loose faeces have lower but still appreciable positive predictive value (PPV). The data has been used to develop recommendations to promote use of TG 420 and thus reduce the suffering and numbers of animals used in acute oral toxicity studies.

Increased Cell Proliferation as a Key Event in Chemical Carcinogenesis: Application in an Integrated Approach for the Testing and Assessment of Non-Genotoxic Carcinogenesis.

In contrast to genotoxic carcinogens, there are currently no internationally agreed upon regulatory tools for identifying non-genotoxic carcinogens of human relevance. The rodent cancer bioassay is only used in certain regulatory sectors and is criticized for its limited predictive power for human cancer risk. Cancer is due to genetic errors occurring in single cells. The risk of cancer is higher when there is an increase in the number of errors per replication (genotoxic agents) or in the number of replications (cell proliferation-inducing agents). The default regulatory approach for genotoxic agents whereby no threshold is set is reasonably conservative. However, non-genotoxic carcinogens cannot be regulated in the same way since increased cell proliferation has a clear threshold. An integrated approach for the testing and assessment (IATA) of non-genotoxic carcinogens is under development at the OECD, considering learnings from the regulatory assessment of data-rich substances such as agrochemicals. The aim is to achieve an endorsed IATA that predicts human cancer better than the rodent cancer bioassay, using methodologies that equally or better protect human health and are superior from the view of animal welfare/efficiency. This paper describes the technical opportunities available to assess cell proliferation as the central gateway of an IATA for non-genotoxic carcinogenicity.

Exposure considerations in human safety assessment: Report from an EPAA Partners' Forum.

Understanding and estimating the exposure to a substance is one of the fundamental requirements for safe manufacture and use. Many approaches are taken to determine exposure to substances, mainly driven by potential use and regulatory need. There are many opportunities to improve and optimise the use of exposure information for chemical safety. The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) therefore convened a Partners' Forum (PF) to explore exposure considerations in human safety assessment of industrial products to agree key conclusions for the regulatory acceptance of exposure assessment approaches and priority areas for further research investment. The PF recognised the widescale use of exposure information across industrial sectors with the possibilities of creating synergies between different sectors. Further, the PF acknowledged that the EPAA could make a significant contribution to promote the use of exposure data in human safety assessment, with an aim to address specific regulatory needs. To achieve this, research needs, as well as synergies and areas for potential collaboration across sectors, were identified.

Assessing the risk of induction of skin sensitization to plant protection products: A quantitative approach.

Exposure to skin sensitizers is common and regulated in many industry sectors. For cosmetics, a risk-based approach has been implemented, focused on preventing the induction of sensitization. First, a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) is derived, then modified by Sensitization Assessment Factors (SAFs) to derive an Acceptable Exposure Level (AEL). The AEL is used in risk assessment, being compared with an estimated exposure dose, specific to the exposure scenario. Since in Europe there is increased concern regarding exposure towards potentially sensitizing pesticides via spray drift, we explore how existing practice can be modified to allow Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) of pesticides for bystanders and residents. NESIL derivation by the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA), the globally required in vivo assay for this endpoint, is reviewed alongside consideration of appropriate SAFs. Using a case study, the principle that the NESIL in µg/cm2 can be derived by multiplying LLNA EC3% figure by a factor of 250 is adopted. The NESIL is then reduced by an overall SAF of 25 to establish an exposure level below which there is minimal bystander and resident risk. Whilst this paper focuses on European risk assessment and management, the approach is generic and universally applicable.

Transforming the evaluation of agrochemicals.

The present agrochemical safety evaluation paradigm is long-standing and anchored in well-established testing and evaluation procedures. However, it does not meet the present-day challenges of rapidly growing populations, food insecurity, and pressures from climate change. To transform the current framework and apply modern evaluation strategies that better support sustainable agriculture, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) assembled a technical committee to reframe the safety evaluation of crop-protection products. The committee is composed of international experts from regulatory agencies, academia, industry and nongovernmental organizations. Their mission is to establish a framework that supports the development of fit-for-purpose agrochemical safety evaluation that is applicable to changing global, as well as local needs and regulatory decisions, and incorporates relevant evolving science. This will be accomplished through the integration of state-of-the-art scientific methods, technologies and data sources, to inform safety and risk decisions, and adapt them to evolving local and global needs. The project team will use a systems-thinking approach to develop the tools that will implement a problem formulation and exposure driven approach to create sustainable, safe and effective crop protection products, and reduce, replace and refine animal studies with fit-for-purpose assays. A new approach necessarily will integrate the most modern tools and latest advances in chemical testing methods to guarantee the robust human and environmental safety and risk assessment of agrochemicals. This article summarizes the challenges associated with the modernization of agrochemical safety evaluation, proposes a potential roadmap, and seeks input and engagement from the broader community to advance this effort. © 2022 Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI). Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

A proposed NAM-based tiered phototoxicity testing and human risk assessment framework for agrochemicals.

Phototoxicity testing is required by European regulations for agrochemicals with UV/visible molar extinction/absorption coefficient (MEC) higher than 10 L x mol-1 x cm-1 in the 290-700 nm wavelength range. Furthermore, regulations identify a need of considering human exposure in case of positive results. While in vitro OECD test guidelines are available for hazard characterisation, there is no guidance on how to utilise positive results in human exposure risk assessments. Our goal was to take a first step towards developing a NAM based tiered testing approach and a framework for non-dietary acute human dermal risk assessment for phototoxicity to agrochemicals. The proposed framework can be divided into a few steps: 1) use the OECD updated MEC values of 1000 L x mol-1 x cm-1 as trigger for phototoxicity testing; 2) establish a reference concentration (RfC) from in vitro phototoxicity studies using BMC approach, 3) estimate potential exposure to skin, target organ for phototoxicity, using EFSA exposure models, product specific labels and skin penetration values, and 4) phototoxicity risk assessment; 5) refinement to RfC and/or exposure estimates can be considered. Finally, case studies of a nematicide and an herbicide active substance are provided to illustrate the proposed framework.

Application of Defined Approaches for Skin Sensitization to Agrochemical Products.

Skin sensitization testing is a regulatory requirement for safety evaluations of pesticides in multiple countries. Globally harmonized test guidelines that include in chemico and in vitro methods reduce animal use, but no single assay is recommended as a complete replacement for animal tests. Defined approaches (DAs) that integrate data from multiple non-animal methods are accepted; however, the methods that comprise them have been evaluated using monoconstituent substances rather than mixtures or formulations. To address this data gap, we tested 27 agrochemical formulations in the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), the KeratinoSens™ assay, and the human cell line activation test (h-CLAT). These data were used as inputs to evaluate three DAs for hazard classification of skin sensitization potential and two DAs for potency categorization. When compared to historical animal results, balanced accuracy for the DAs for predicting in vivo skin sensitization hazard (i.e., sensitizer vs. nonsensitizer) ranged from 56 to 78%. The best performing DA was the "2 out of 3 (2o3)" DA, in which the hazard classification was based on two concordant results from the DPRA, KeratinoSens, or h-CLAT. The KE 3/1 sequential testing strategy (STS), which uses h-CLAT and DPRA results, and the integrated testing strategy (ITSv2), which uses h-CLAT, DPRA, and an in silico hazard prediction from OECD QSAR Toolbox, had balanced accuracies of 56-57% for hazard classification. Of the individual test methods, KeratinoSens had the best performance for predicting in vivo hazard outcomes. Its balanced accuracy of 81% was similar to that of the 2o3 DA (78%). For predicting potency categories defined by the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), the correct classification rate of the STS was 52% and that of the ITSv2 was 43%. These results demonstrate that non-animal test methods have utility for evaluating the skin sensitization potential of agrochemical formulations as compared to animal reference data. While additional data generation is needed, testing strategies such as DAs anchored to human biology and mechanistic information provide a promising approach for agrochemical formulation testing.

Recommendations on dose level selection for repeat dose toxicity studies.

Prior to registering and marketing any new pharmaceutical, (agro)chemical or food ingredient product manufacturers must, by law, generate data to ensure human safety. Safety testing requirements vary depending on sector, but generally repeat-dose testing in animals form the basis for human health risk assessments. Dose level selection is an important consideration when designing such studies, to ensure that exposure levels that lead to relevant hazards are identified. Advice on dose level selection is provided in test guidelines and allied guidance documents, but it is not well harmonised, particularly for selection of the highest dose tested. This paper further builds on concepts developed in a technical report by the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) which recommends pragmatic approaches to dose selection considering regulatory requirements, animal welfare and state of the art scientific approaches. Industry sectors have differing degrees of freedom to operate regarding dose level selection, depending on the purpose of the studies and the regulatory requirements/legislation, and this is reflected in the overall recommended approaches. An understanding of systemic exposure should be utilised where possible (e.g., through toxicokinetic approaches) and used together with apical endpoints from existing toxicity studies to guide more appropriate dose level selection. The highest dose should be limited to a reasonable level, causing minimal but evident toxicity to the test animals without significantly compromising their well-being. As the science of predictive human exposure further develops and matures, this will provide exciting and novel opportunities for more human-relevant approaches to dose level selection.

Developmental toxicity studies on triclopyr acid, triclopyr butoxyethyl ester and triclopyr triethylamine salt in the rabbit.

Developmental toxicity studies have been conducted in the rabbit on triclopyr acid and its active-ingredient variants, triclopyr triethylamine salt (T-TEA) and triclopyr butoxyethyl ester (T-BEE), which are dissociated or hydrolysed in vivo to triclopyr acid. In this paper, the available developmental toxicity studies on triclopyr acid, T-TEA and T-BEE are summarised and evaluated. For triclopyr acid and T-TEA, there was no evidence of impaired reproductive performance, fetotoxicity, or teratogenicity, even at maternally toxic doses. The no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) for developmental toxicity were 75 mg/kg bw per day for triclopyr acid and 100 mg/kg bw per day for T-TEA, equivalent to 72 mg/kg bw per day expressed as triclopyr acid. A study on T-BEE showed increased post-implantation loss and slight increases in skeletal anomalies and variants at the highest dose tested of 100 mg/kg bw per day, a maternally toxic dose. In a follow-up study on T-BEE, focusing on post-implantation loss, no general increase in post-implantation loss was observed, but one animal at 100 mg/kg bw per day with maternal toxicity had complete resorption of implants. The NOAEL for post-implantation loss was 60 mg/kg bw per day, equivalent to 44 mg/kg bw per day expressed as triclopyr acid. It cannot be excluded that T-BEE may be associated with increased post-implantation loss, but it was only seen in association with maternal toxicity. It is concluded that triclopyr acid and its variants are not specifically toxic to the rabbit embryo and fetus, since post-implantation loss only occurred at doses causing maternal toxicity.

Reproductive and developmental evaluations of triclopyr acid, triclopyr butoxyethyl ester and triclopyr triethylamine salt in the rat.

Reproductive and developmental toxicity studies have been conducted in rat and rabbit on triclopyr acid and its active-ingredient variants, triclopyr butoxyethyl ester (T-BEE) and triclopyr triethylamine salt (T-TEA). In this paper the results of a rat two-generation study on triclopyr acid are presented, together with a review of all the reproductive and developmental toxicity data available from the rat studies. In the rat two-generation study, triclopyr acid was administered in the diet, giving doses of 0, 5, 25 or 250 mg/kg bw per day. Parental toxicity, especially maternal toxicity, occurred at 250 mg/kg bw per day with reduced body weight and feed intake, organ weight changes, and kidney toxicity. Slight kidney toxicity was also evident at 25 mg/kg bw per day. Developmental toxicity, in the form of reduced postnatal survival in the F1 and F2 generations and reductions in pre-weaning offspring body weight in both generations, was seen only at a dose causing significant parental toxicity. There were no effects on any other reproductive or developmental parameters at any dose. It is concluded that the developmental toxicity, seen only at the highest dose, was most likely attributable to maternal toxicity. The no-observed-adverse-effect levels were 5 mg/kg bw per day for parental toxicity and 25 mg/kg bw per day for developmental toxicity. From the multigeneration and developmental toxicity studies on triclopyr and its variants, it can also be concluded that triclopyr is not specifically toxic to reproduction and is not selectively toxic to the embryo, fetus or neonate in the rat.

A retrospective study on EU harmonised classifications for carcinogenicity to guide future research.

Under European Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP), chemicals can be classified as carcinogenic if they are considered to induce tumours, increase tumour incidence and/or malignancy, or shorten the time to tumour occurrence. Cancer classifications are divided into different hazard categories: Carc. 1A (known human carcinogen), Carc. 1B (presumed human carcinogen), Carc. 2 (suspected human carcinogen), and chemicals not classified for carcinogenicity. Selecting which classification is appropriate can be challenging, as judgements need to be made both on the existing hazard data and on its relevance to humans. One aspect to be considered in defining human relevance is a chemical's mode of action (MoA); the series of necessary key events that lead from an exposure to the adverse effect (in this case, tumours). This work aims to identify and discuss some of the features that have led ECHA's Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) to decide upon harmonised cancer classifications for chemicals, and to prioritise future research on MoA and/or human relevance. RAC bases its decisions on cancer classification on both the weight-of-evidence (WoE) and strength-of-evidence (SoE) of this particular activity. Multiple factors contribute, including the species in which tumours are seen, and the relevance of the MoA to human health.

Towards a mechanism-based approach for the prediction of nongenotoxic carcinogenic potential of agrochemicals.

Chemical substances are subjected to assessment of genotoxic and carcinogenic effects before being marketed to protect man and the environment from health risks. For agrochemicals, the long-term rodent carcinogenicity study is currently required from a regulatory perspective. Although it is the current mainstay for the detection of nongenotoxic carcinogens, carcinogenicity studies are shown to have prominent weaknesses and are subject to ethical and scientific debate. A transition toward a mechanism-based weight-of-evidence approach is considered a requirement to enhance the prediction of carcinogenic potential for environmental (agro)chemicals. The resulting approach should make optimal use of innovative (computational) tools and be less animal demanding. To identify the various mode of actions (MOAs) underlying the nongenotoxic carcinogenic potential of agrochemicals, we conducted an extensive analysis of 411 unique agrochemicals that have been evaluated for carcinogenicity by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). About one-third of these substances could be categorized as nongenotoxic carcinogens with an average of approximately two tumor types per substance, observed in a variety of organs. For two-third of the tumor cases, an underlying MOA (network) could be identified. This analysis demonstrates that a limited set of MOA (networks) is underlying nongenotoxic carcinogenicity of agrochemicals, illustrating that the transition toward a MOA-driven approach appears manageable. Ultimately the approach should cover relevant MOAs and its associated key events; this will also facilitate the evaluation of the human relevance. This manuscript describes the results of the analysis while identifying knowledge gaps and necessities to achieve a mechanism-based weight-of-evidence approach.

A comprehensive view on mechanistic approaches for cancer risk assessment of non-genotoxic agrochemicals.

Currently the only methods for non-genotoxic carcinogenic hazard assessment accepted by most regulatory authorities are lifetime carcinogenicity studies. However, these involve the use of large numbers of animals and the relevance of their predictive power and results has been scientifically challenged. With increased availability of innovative test methods and enhanced understanding of carcinogenic processes, it is believed that tumour formation can now be better predicted using mechanistic information. A workshop organised by the European Partnership on Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing brought together experts to discuss an alternative, mechanism-based approach for cancer risk assessment of agrochemicals. Data from a toolbox of test methods for detecting modes of action (MOAs) underlying non-genotoxic carcinogenicity are combined with information from subchronic toxicity studies in a weight-of-evidence approach to identify carcinogenic potential of a test substance. The workshop included interactive sessions to discuss the approach using case studies. These showed that fine-tuning is needed, to build confidence in the proposed approach, to ensure scientific correctness, and to address different regulatory needs. This novel approach was considered realistic, and its regulatory acceptance and implementation can be facilitated in the coming years through continued dialogue between all stakeholders and building confidence in alternative approaches.

Review of the pharmacokinetics and metabolism of triclopyr herbicide in mammals: Impact on safety assessments.

A review of pharmacokinetic and metabolism studies show that triclopyr is well absorbed from the oral route in numerous species (≥80%), primarily as parent compound. Absorption is quite rapid in rats, dogs and human volunteers. Plasma or blood clearance is also rapid (t1/2 3-9 h), except for dog (12-96 h). Systemic exposure is not dose-proportional: in the rat above 20 mg/kg (dietary) or between 3 and 60 mg/kg (gavage), or in dogs above 5 mg/kg, with systemic exposure in human more comparable to rat than dog. Triclopyr is highly bound to protein in rat, dog and human plasma (≥97% at or below 7 µg/mL), indicating that species differences in systemic exposure are not due to differences in the free fraction of this test material in plasma. An in vitro flux study in renal proximal tubule cells showed that net renal transport of triclopyr is in the direction of secretion in rat and human donors, while reabsorption predominated in the dog, possibly via organic anion transporters such as OAT1/3. These results fit well into the framework of utilizing metabolism and toxicokinetics across species and exposure levels to allow for toxicity testing in the most relevant species as well as at proper dose levels.

Chemical carcinogen safety testing: OECD expert group international consensus on the development of an integrated approach for the testing and assessment of chemical non-genotoxic carcinogens.

While regulatory requirements for carcinogenicity testing of chemicals vary according to product sector and regulatory jurisdiction, the standard approach starts with a battery of genotoxicity tests (which include mutagenicity assays). If any of the in vivo genotoxicity tests are positive, a lifetime rodent cancer bioassay may be requested, but under most chemical regulations (except plant protection, biocides, pharmaceuticals), this is rare. The decision to conduct further testing based on genotoxicity test outcomes creates a regulatory gap for the identification of non-genotoxic carcinogens (NGTxC). With the objective of addressing this gap, in 2016, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) established an expert group to develop an integrated approach to the testing and assessment (IATA) of NGTxC. Through that work, a definition of NGTxC in a regulatory context was agreed. Using the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept, various cancer models were developed, and overarching mechanisms and modes of action were identified. After further refining and structuring with respect to the common hallmarks of cancer and knowing that NGTxC act through a large variety of specific mechanisms, with cell proliferation commonly being a unifying element, it became evident that a panel of tests covering multiple biological traits will be needed to populate the IATA. Consequently, in addition to literature and database investigation, the OECD opened a call for relevant assays in 2018 to receive suggestions. Here, we report on the definition of NGTxC, on the development of the overarching NGTxC IATA, and on the development of ranking parameters to evaluate the assays. Ultimately the intent is to select the best scoring assays for integration in an NGTxC IATA to better identify carcinogens and reduce public health hazards.

An evaluation framework for new approach methodologies (NAMs) for human health safety assessment.

The need to develop new tools and increase capacity to test pharmaceuticals and other chemicals for potential adverse impacts on human health and the environment is an active area of development. Much of this activity was sparked by two reports from the US National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies of Sciences, Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first Century: A Vision and a Strategy (2007) and Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment (2009), both of which advocated for "science-informed decision-making" in the field of human health risk assessment. The response to these challenges for a "paradigm shift" toward using new approach methodologies (NAMS) for safety assessment has resulted in an explosion of initiatives by numerous organizations, but, for the most part, these have been carried out independently and are not coordinated in any meaningful way. To help remedy this situation, a framework that presents a consistent set of criteria, universal across initiatives, to evaluate a NAM's fit-for-purpose was developed by a multi-stakeholder group of industry, academic, and regulatory experts. The goal of this framework is to support greater consistency across existing and future initiatives by providing a structure to collect relevant information to build confidence that will accelerate, facilitate and encourage development of new NAMs that can ultimately be used within the appropriate regulatory contexts. In addition, this framework provides a systematic approach to evaluate the currently-available NAMs and determine their suitability for potential regulatory application. This 3-step evaluation framework along with the demonstrated application with case studies, will help build confidence in the scientific understanding of these methods and their value for chemical assessment and regulatory decision-making.