RESUMO
As part of the US FDA CFSAN's efforts to explore alternatives to animal testing, we retrospectively analyzed a sample of food additive (FAP) and color additive petitions (CAP) submitted to the FDA for the utility of dog study data in safety assessment. FAPs and CAPs containing dog studies (161 petitions) were classified as decisive (38%), supportive (27%), supplemental (29%) or undermined (6%) based on the impact the dog study data had on the final safety decision. Petitions classified as decisive were further categorized based on if the dog study data were used to a) address a safety concern (35/61); b) calculate an acceptable daily intake (ADI) (11/61); c) withdraw a petition (4/61); d) the effect was unique to the dog (2/61); or e) unclear (9/61). Of 11 petitions where the dog study was used to set an ADI, 7 contained studies where the points of departure (POD) from the dog studies were within an 8-fold range of the rodent with differences in study design likely contributing to the difference in PODs. Future research should include the development and use of qualified alternative studies to replace the use of animal testing for food and color additive safety assessment while ensuring human safety.
