Ten years of REACH - An animal protection perspective.

It has now been 11 years since the EU's new chemicals legislation (Regulation No. 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals [REACH]) came into force. Two important statements in the REACH Regulation in relation to animal testing and alternatives are: Article 1(1), which states that one of its purposes is to promote alternative methods; and Article 25(1), which states that animal testing should be used as a last resort. This review looks at the mechanisms that were put in place within REACH to achieve these aims and asks, not only if they are being implemented properly, but also if they have been sufficient. Whilst the chemical industry has heavily used data-sharing and read-across, this review concludes that nevertheless over 2.2 million animals have already been used in new tests for REACH registrations. This equates to an annual average of 275,000 animals; 58,000 more per year than the best-case estimate made by the European Commission in 2004. The use of in vitro and (Q)SAR approaches as standalone replacements for animal tests has been relatively low. The levels of funding for research into alternative methods remain low, and there are concerns over the speed of formal adoption of those that have been validated. In addition, there have been issues with the recognition that testing as a last resort and the promotion of alternative methods applies to all parties, including the Commission, Member States and the agency responsible, the European Chemicals Agency. This review provides ten recommendations for better implementation of these two key aspirations, as well as lessons to be learned for future similar legislation.

Embryonic stem cells and the next generation of developmental toxicity testing.

INTRODUCTION: The advent of stem cell technology has seen the establishment of embryonic stem cells (ESCs) as molecular model systems and screening tools. Although ESCs are nowadays widely used in research, regulatory implementation for developmental toxicity testing is pending. Areas Covered: This review evaluates the performance of current ESC, including human (h)ESC testing systems, trying to elucidate their potential for developmental toxicity testing. It shall discuss defining parameters and mechanisms, their relevance and contemplate what can realistically be expected. Crucially this includes the question of how to ascertain the quality of currently employed cell lines and tests based thereon. Finally, the use of hESCs will raise ethical concerns which should be addressed early on. Expert Opinion: While the suitability of (h)ESCs as tools for research and development goes undisputed, any routine use for developmental toxicity testing currently still seems premature. The reasons for this comprise inherent biological deficiencies as well as cell line quality and system validation. Overcoming these issues will require collaboration of scientists, test developers and regulators. Also, validation needs to be made worthwhile for academia. Finally we have to continuously rethink existing strategies, making room for improved testing and innovative approaches.

Assigning ethical weights to clinical signs observed during toxicity testing.

Reducing the number of laboratory animals used and refining experimental procedures to enhance animal welfare are fundamental questions to be considered in connection with animal experimentation. Here, we explored the use of cardinal ethical weights for clinical signs and symptoms in rodents by conducting trade-off interviews with members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees in order to derive such weights for nine typical clinical signs of toxicity. The participants interviewed represent researchers, politically nominated political nominees and representatives of animal welfare organizations. We observed no statistically significant differences between these groups with respect to the magnitude of the ethical weights assigned, though the political nominees tended to assign lower weights. Overall, hunched posture was considered the most severe clinical sign and body weight loss the least severe. The ethical weights assigned varied considerably between individuals, from zero to infinite value, indicating discrepancies in prioritization of reduction and refinement. Cardinal ethical weights may be utilized to include both animal welfare refinement and reduction of animal use in designing as well as in retrospective assessment of animal experiments. Such weights may also be used to estimate ethical costs of animal experiments.

It takes a village: Stakeholder participation is essential to transforming science.

Efforts toward replacing the use of animals in toxicology testing have begun to make significant headway in the last several years, due to co-operative and pragmatic efforts on the part of many stakeholders, and the public pressure that non-governmental advocacy organisations represent. Science-focused advocacy organisations have a unique role to play in these efforts, as they often have flexibility to adapt quickly to keep a project going and forge connections among different kinds of stakeholders to help encourage buy-in. This year, meaningful progress has been made, especially in regulatory laws and policies, which will lead to the replacement of animals in toxicology testing. In order to keep this momentum, we need to measure progress -- but this requires improved transparency and regular reporting of animal use. In addition, we should consider how strategies that have successfully reduced and replaced animal use in toxicology can be applied to basic biomedical research practices.

The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation.

Nonhuman animal ("animal") experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods.

Ending the use of animals in toxicity testing and risk evaluation.

This article discusses the use of animals for the safety testing of chemicals, including pharmaceuticals, household products, pesticides, and industrial chemicals. It reviews changes in safety testing technology and what those changes mean from the perspective of industrial innovation, public policy and public health, economics, and ethics. It concludes that the continuing use of animals for chemical safety testing should end within the decade as cheaper, quicker, and more predictive technologies are developed and applied.

Better science with human cell-based organ and tissue models.

At present, animal-based models are the major test systems for assessing the tolerability and safety of chemical substances for regulatory purposes, and also for pivotal efficacy testing in pharmaceutical development. In spite of the high genetic similarity between many laboratory animals and humans, animal models are very poor predictors of human health effects and pathophysiological processes. Thus, models and testing strategies that are more relevant to human biology, are needed for these purposes. The best predictability is achieved with human organotypic models that mimic the microenvironment of human tissues. During their development, such models have to be characterised at the structural, genetic and functional levels, and compared to the respective human tissues. Their predictivity should be confirmed by using known reference chemicals with corresponding human data. The use of these methods in safety assessment and biomedical research, combined with the knowledge gained of the underlying biological processes on gene and protein expression, as well as on cellular signalling, will ultimately lead to better human science and animal welfare.

Use of animals for toxicology testing is necessary to ensure patient safety in pharmaceutical development.

There is an active debate in toxicology literature about the utility of animal testing vis-a-vis alternative in vitro paradigms. To provide a balanced perspective and add to this discourse it is important to review the current paradigms, explore pros and cons of alternatives, and provide a vision for the future. The fundamental goal of toxicity testing is to ensure safety in humans. In this article, IQ Consortium DruSafe, while submitting the view that nonclinical testing in animals is an important and critical component of the risk assessment paradigm in developing new drugs, also discusses its views on alternative approaches including a roadmap for what would be required to enhance the utilization of alternative approaches in the safety assessment process.

The use of whole food animal studies in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops: limitations and recommendations.

There is disagreement internationally across major regulatory jurisdictions on the relevance and utility of whole food (WF) toxicity studies on GM crops, with no harmonization of data or regulatory requirements. The scientific value, and therefore animal ethics, of WF studies on GM crops is a matter addressable from the wealth of data available on commercialized GM crops and WF studies on irradiated foods. We reviewed available GM crop WF studies and considered the extent to which they add to the information from agronomic and compositional analyses. No WF toxicity study was identified that convincingly demonstrated toxicological concern or that called into question the adequacy, sufficiency, and reliability of safety assessments based on crop molecular characterization, transgene source, agronomic characteristics, and/or compositional analysis of the GM crop and its near-isogenic line. Predictions of safety based on crop genetics and compositional analyses have provided complete concordance with the results of well-conducted animal testing. However, this concordance is primarily due to the improbability of de novo generation of toxic substances in crop plants using genetic engineering practices and due to the weakness of WF toxicity studies in general. Thus, based on the comparative robustness and reliability of compositional and agronomic considerations and on the absence of any scientific basis for a significant potential for de novo generation of toxicologically significant compositional alterations as a sole result of transgene insertion, the conclusion of this review is that WF animal toxicity studies are unnecessary and scientifically unjustifiable.

The Nuremberg Code subverts human health and safety by requiring animal modeling.

BACKGROUND: The requirement that animals be used in research and testing in order to protect humans was formalized in the Nuremberg Code and subsequent national and international laws, codes, and declarations. DISCUSSION: We review the history of these requirements and contrast what was known via science about animal models then with what is known now. We further analyze the predictive value of animal models when used as test subjects for human response to drugs and disease. We explore the use of animals for models in toxicity testing as an example of the problem with using animal models. SUMMARY: We conclude that the requirements for animal testing found in the Nuremberg Code were based on scientifically outdated principles, compromised by people with a vested interest in animal experimentation, serve no useful function, increase the cost of drug development, and prevent otherwise safe and efficacious drugs and therapies from being implemented.

A roadmap for the development of alternative (non-animal) methods for systemic toxicity testing.

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.

Standardization of pluripotent stem cell cultures for toxicity testing.

INTRODUCTION: Pluripotent stem cell (PSC) lines offer a unique opportunity to derive various human cell types that can be exploited for human safety assessments in vitro and as such contribute to modern mechanistically oriented toxicity testing. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the two major types of PSC cultures that are currently most promising for toxicological applications: human embryonic stem cell lines and human induced PSC lines. Through the review, the article explains how these cell types will improve the current safety evaluations of chemicals and will allow a more efficient selection of drug candidates. Additionally, the article discusses the important issues of maintaining PSCs as well as their differentiation efficiency. EXPERT OPINION: The demonstration of the reliability and relevance of in vitro toxicity tests for a given purpose is mandatory for their use in regulatory toxicity testing. Given the peculiar nature of PSCs, a high level of standardization of undifferentiated cell cultures as well as of the differentiation process is required in order to ensure the establishment of robust test systems. It is, therefore, of pivotal importance to define and internationally agree on crucial parameters to judge the quality of the cellular models before enrolling them for toxicity testing.