Loading…
Local Tolerance Testing under REACH: Accepted Non-animal Methods are Not on Equal Footing with Animal Tests
In general, no single non-animal method can cover the complexity of any given animal test. Therefore, fixed sets of in vitro (and in chemico) methods have been combined into testing strategies for skin and eye irritation and skin sensitisation testing, with pre-defined prediction models for substanc...
Saved in:
Published in: | Alternatives to laboratory animals 2016-07, Vol.44 (3), p.281-299 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-f7aac89de7153364209a13d5760e7ed424ecd3fbf5bbbc8b7b6ec47cc6bb34d83 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-f7aac89de7153364209a13d5760e7ed424ecd3fbf5bbbc8b7b6ec47cc6bb34d83 |
container_end_page | 299 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 281 |
container_title | Alternatives to laboratory animals |
container_volume | 44 |
creator | Sauer, Ursula G. Hill, Erin H. Curren, Rodger D. Kolle, Susanne N. Teubner, Wera Mehling, Annette Landsiedel, Robert |
description | In general, no single non-animal method can cover the complexity of any given animal test. Therefore, fixed sets of in vitro (and in chemico) methods have been combined into testing strategies for skin and eye irritation and skin sensitisation testing, with pre-defined prediction models for substance classification. Many of these methods have been adopted as OECD test guidelines. Various testing strategies have been successfully validated in extensive in-house and inter-laboratory studies, but they have not yet received formal acceptance for substance classification. Therefore, under the European REACH Regulation, data from testing strategies can, in general, only be used in so-called weight-of-evidence approaches. While animal testing data generated under the specific REACH information requirements are per se sufficient, the sufficiency of weight-of-evidence approaches can be questioned under the REACH system, and further animal testing can be required. This constitutes an imbalance between the regulatory acceptance of data from approved non-animal methods and animal tests that is not justified on scientific grounds. To ensure that testing strategies for local tolerance testing truly serve to replace animal testing for the REACH registration 2018 deadline (when the majority of existing chemicals have to be registered), clarity on their regulatory acceptance as complete replacements is urgently required. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/026119291604400311 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1810352948</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_026119291604400311</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2660988683</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-f7aac89de7153364209a13d5760e7ed424ecd3fbf5bbbc8b7b6ec47cc6bb34d83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU9r2zAYxsXYWELXL7DD0LEXt_pnSe4thHQtZC2U9Gz053Xi1bESyWbs209u2l0G3Ukg_Z6fXulB6Csll5QqdUWYpLRiFZVECEI4pR_QnEnOCl6W1Uc0n4BiImboPKXWkpJzrbguP6MZU6ISkqk5el4HZzq8CR1E0zvAG0hD22_x2HuI-HG1WN5e44VzcBjA4_vQF6Zv9znyA4Zd8AmbCHl7wKHHq-OYD25CeDH8aocdXpzgyZq-oE-N6RKcv65n6OlmtVneFuuH73fLxbpwvCRD0ShjnK48KJpHloKRylDuSyUJKPCCCXCeN7YprbVOW2UlOKGck9Zy4TU_Qxcn7yGG45hvrvdtctB1pocwpppJSSqtpeb_RammhJesEpOVnVAXQ0oRmvoQ89vi75qSeqqk_reSHPr26h_tHvzfyFsBGbg6Aclsof4Zxtjnr3lP-QfvqZLY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1810352948</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Local Tolerance Testing under REACH: Accepted Non-animal Methods are Not on Equal Footing with Animal Tests</title><source>SAGE</source><creator>Sauer, Ursula G. ; Hill, Erin H. ; Curren, Rodger D. ; Kolle, Susanne N. ; Teubner, Wera ; Mehling, Annette ; Landsiedel, Robert</creator><creatorcontrib>Sauer, Ursula G. ; Hill, Erin H. ; Curren, Rodger D. ; Kolle, Susanne N. ; Teubner, Wera ; Mehling, Annette ; Landsiedel, Robert</creatorcontrib><description>In general, no single non-animal method can cover the complexity of any given animal test. Therefore, fixed sets of in vitro (and in chemico) methods have been combined into testing strategies for skin and eye irritation and skin sensitisation testing, with pre-defined prediction models for substance classification. Many of these methods have been adopted as OECD test guidelines. Various testing strategies have been successfully validated in extensive in-house and inter-laboratory studies, but they have not yet received formal acceptance for substance classification. Therefore, under the European REACH Regulation, data from testing strategies can, in general, only be used in so-called weight-of-evidence approaches. While animal testing data generated under the specific REACH information requirements are per se sufficient, the sufficiency of weight-of-evidence approaches can be questioned under the REACH system, and further animal testing can be required. This constitutes an imbalance between the regulatory acceptance of data from approved non-animal methods and animal tests that is not justified on scientific grounds. To ensure that testing strategies for local tolerance testing truly serve to replace animal testing for the REACH registration 2018 deadline (when the majority of existing chemicals have to be registered), clarity on their regulatory acceptance as complete replacements is urgently required.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0261-1929</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2632-3559</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/026119291604400311</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27494627</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Animal Testing Alternatives ; animal tests ; Animals ; Dermatitis, Contact ; European Union ; Eye Diseases - chemically induced ; Eye Injuries - chemically induced ; eye irritation ; Hazardous Substances - toxicity ; laboratories ; Legislation, Drug ; prediction ; Skin Diseases - chemically induced ; skin tests ; Toxicity Tests - standards ; weight-of-evidence</subject><ispartof>Alternatives to laboratory animals, 2016-07, Vol.44 (3), p.281-299</ispartof><rights>2016 Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments</rights><rights>2016 FRAME.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-f7aac89de7153364209a13d5760e7ed424ecd3fbf5bbbc8b7b6ec47cc6bb34d83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-f7aac89de7153364209a13d5760e7ed424ecd3fbf5bbbc8b7b6ec47cc6bb34d83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,79110</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27494627$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sauer, Ursula G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Erin H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Curren, Rodger D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kolle, Susanne N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teubner, Wera</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mehling, Annette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Landsiedel, Robert</creatorcontrib><title>Local Tolerance Testing under REACH: Accepted Non-animal Methods are Not on Equal Footing with Animal Tests</title><title>Alternatives to laboratory animals</title><addtitle>Altern Lab Anim</addtitle><description>In general, no single non-animal method can cover the complexity of any given animal test. Therefore, fixed sets of in vitro (and in chemico) methods have been combined into testing strategies for skin and eye irritation and skin sensitisation testing, with pre-defined prediction models for substance classification. Many of these methods have been adopted as OECD test guidelines. Various testing strategies have been successfully validated in extensive in-house and inter-laboratory studies, but they have not yet received formal acceptance for substance classification. Therefore, under the European REACH Regulation, data from testing strategies can, in general, only be used in so-called weight-of-evidence approaches. While animal testing data generated under the specific REACH information requirements are per se sufficient, the sufficiency of weight-of-evidence approaches can be questioned under the REACH system, and further animal testing can be required. This constitutes an imbalance between the regulatory acceptance of data from approved non-animal methods and animal tests that is not justified on scientific grounds. To ensure that testing strategies for local tolerance testing truly serve to replace animal testing for the REACH registration 2018 deadline (when the majority of existing chemicals have to be registered), clarity on their regulatory acceptance as complete replacements is urgently required.</description><subject>Animal Testing Alternatives</subject><subject>animal tests</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Dermatitis, Contact</subject><subject>European Union</subject><subject>Eye Diseases - chemically induced</subject><subject>Eye Injuries - chemically induced</subject><subject>eye irritation</subject><subject>Hazardous Substances - toxicity</subject><subject>laboratories</subject><subject>Legislation, Drug</subject><subject>prediction</subject><subject>Skin Diseases - chemically induced</subject><subject>skin tests</subject><subject>Toxicity Tests - standards</subject><subject>weight-of-evidence</subject><issn>0261-1929</issn><issn>2632-3559</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkU9r2zAYxsXYWELXL7DD0LEXt_pnSe4thHQtZC2U9Gz053Xi1bESyWbs209u2l0G3Ukg_Z6fXulB6Csll5QqdUWYpLRiFZVECEI4pR_QnEnOCl6W1Uc0n4BiImboPKXWkpJzrbguP6MZU6ISkqk5el4HZzq8CR1E0zvAG0hD22_x2HuI-HG1WN5e44VzcBjA4_vQF6Zv9znyA4Zd8AmbCHl7wKHHq-OYD25CeDH8aocdXpzgyZq-oE-N6RKcv65n6OlmtVneFuuH73fLxbpwvCRD0ShjnK48KJpHloKRylDuSyUJKPCCCXCeN7YprbVOW2UlOKGck9Zy4TU_Qxcn7yGG45hvrvdtctB1pocwpppJSSqtpeb_RammhJesEpOVnVAXQ0oRmvoQ89vi75qSeqqk_reSHPr26h_tHvzfyFsBGbg6Aclsof4Zxtjnr3lP-QfvqZLY</recordid><startdate>201607</startdate><enddate>201607</enddate><creator>Sauer, Ursula G.</creator><creator>Hill, Erin H.</creator><creator>Curren, Rodger D.</creator><creator>Kolle, Susanne N.</creator><creator>Teubner, Wera</creator><creator>Mehling, Annette</creator><creator>Landsiedel, Robert</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201607</creationdate><title>Local Tolerance Testing under REACH: Accepted Non-animal Methods are Not on Equal Footing with Animal Tests</title><author>Sauer, Ursula G. ; Hill, Erin H. ; Curren, Rodger D. ; Kolle, Susanne N. ; Teubner, Wera ; Mehling, Annette ; Landsiedel, Robert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-f7aac89de7153364209a13d5760e7ed424ecd3fbf5bbbc8b7b6ec47cc6bb34d83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Animal Testing Alternatives</topic><topic>animal tests</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Dermatitis, Contact</topic><topic>European Union</topic><topic>Eye Diseases - chemically induced</topic><topic>Eye Injuries - chemically induced</topic><topic>eye irritation</topic><topic>Hazardous Substances - toxicity</topic><topic>laboratories</topic><topic>Legislation, Drug</topic><topic>prediction</topic><topic>Skin Diseases - chemically induced</topic><topic>skin tests</topic><topic>Toxicity Tests - standards</topic><topic>weight-of-evidence</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sauer, Ursula G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Erin H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Curren, Rodger D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kolle, Susanne N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teubner, Wera</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mehling, Annette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Landsiedel, Robert</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Alternatives to laboratory animals</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sauer, Ursula G.</au><au>Hill, Erin H.</au><au>Curren, Rodger D.</au><au>Kolle, Susanne N.</au><au>Teubner, Wera</au><au>Mehling, Annette</au><au>Landsiedel, Robert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Local Tolerance Testing under REACH: Accepted Non-animal Methods are Not on Equal Footing with Animal Tests</atitle><jtitle>Alternatives to laboratory animals</jtitle><addtitle>Altern Lab Anim</addtitle><date>2016-07</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>281</spage><epage>299</epage><pages>281-299</pages><issn>0261-1929</issn><eissn>2632-3559</eissn><abstract>In general, no single non-animal method can cover the complexity of any given animal test. Therefore, fixed sets of in vitro (and in chemico) methods have been combined into testing strategies for skin and eye irritation and skin sensitisation testing, with pre-defined prediction models for substance classification. Many of these methods have been adopted as OECD test guidelines. Various testing strategies have been successfully validated in extensive in-house and inter-laboratory studies, but they have not yet received formal acceptance for substance classification. Therefore, under the European REACH Regulation, data from testing strategies can, in general, only be used in so-called weight-of-evidence approaches. While animal testing data generated under the specific REACH information requirements are per se sufficient, the sufficiency of weight-of-evidence approaches can be questioned under the REACH system, and further animal testing can be required. This constitutes an imbalance between the regulatory acceptance of data from approved non-animal methods and animal tests that is not justified on scientific grounds. To ensure that testing strategies for local tolerance testing truly serve to replace animal testing for the REACH registration 2018 deadline (when the majority of existing chemicals have to be registered), clarity on their regulatory acceptance as complete replacements is urgently required.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>27494627</pmid><doi>10.1177/026119291604400311</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0261-1929 |
ispartof | Alternatives to laboratory animals, 2016-07, Vol.44 (3), p.281-299 |
issn | 0261-1929 2632-3559 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1810352948 |
source | SAGE |
subjects | Animal Testing Alternatives animal tests Animals Dermatitis, Contact European Union Eye Diseases - chemically induced Eye Injuries - chemically induced eye irritation Hazardous Substances - toxicity laboratories Legislation, Drug prediction Skin Diseases - chemically induced skin tests Toxicity Tests - standards weight-of-evidence |
title | Local Tolerance Testing under REACH: Accepted Non-animal Methods are Not on Equal Footing with Animal Tests |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T23%3A15%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Local%20Tolerance%20Testing%20under%20REACH:%20Accepted%20Non-animal%20Methods%20are%20Not%20on%20Equal%20Footing%20with%20Animal%20Tests&rft.jtitle=Alternatives%20to%20laboratory%20animals&rft.au=Sauer,%20Ursula%20G.&rft.date=2016-07&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=281&rft.epage=299&rft.pages=281-299&rft.issn=0261-1929&rft.eissn=2632-3559&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/026119291604400311&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2660988683%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c350t-f7aac89de7153364209a13d5760e7ed424ecd3fbf5bbbc8b7b6ec47cc6bb34d83%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1810352948&rft_id=info:pmid/27494627&rft_sage_id=10.1177_026119291604400311&rfr_iscdi=true |