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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Alternatives to laboratory animals 2016-07, Vol.44 (3), p.281-299
Main Authors: Sauer, Ursula G., Hill, Erin H., Curren, Rodger D., Kolle, Susanne N., Teubner, Wera, Mehling, Annette, Landsiedel, Robert
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