Suchergebnisse

The 90-day toxicity study is one of the studies used in the safety assessment of food ingredients, medicines or other chemical substances. This paper reviews the current role of the 90-day oral toxicity study in European regulatory dossiers of chemicals by reviewing EU legislation and EU and OECD guidance documents. Regulatory provisions with regard to necessity, objectives and design of such 90-day toxicity studies vary between the different sectors addressed in this review. Most often the 90-day study is expected to be part of the standard test battery used for chemical risk assessment, without necessarily being a legal requirement and its objectives may vary between regulatory domains. Exceptions, when a 90-day study is not required are spelled out in the chemicals legislation and for food contact materials. The sectorial study design requirements of the 90-day toxicity study are very often embedded in the OECD TG 408 protocol. Differences in study objectives are not necessarily reflected in specific study designs. Considering the call for the reduction of using experimental animals for scientific purposes and the fact that a 90-day study may serve different purposes, consistency between the necessity to conduct such a study, its objectives and the study design to achieve these objectives may improve judicious use of laboratory animals. Thus there may be an opportunity to reflect and further optimise the design of in vivo toxicology studies, such as the 90-day study. This should be based on a systematic analysis of past studies and risk assessments.

Safety assessment of chemicals and products in the European Union (EU) is based on decades of practice using primarily animal toxicity studies to model hazardous effects in humans. Nevertheless, there has been a longstanding ethical concern about using experimental animals. In addition, animal models may fail to predict adverse effects in humans. This has provided a strong motivation to develop and use new approach methodologies and other alternative sources of evidence. A key challenge for this is integration of evidence from different sources. This paper is a call for action with regard to development, validation, and implementation of modern safety assessment approaches for human health assessment by means of focused applied research and development with three strands: (a) to improve screening and priority setting, (b) to enhance and partially replace animal studies under the current regulatory schemes and eventually (c) to fully replace animal studies, while achieving at least the same level of protection. For this gradual but systematic replacement of animal studies, a long-term concerted and coordinated effort with clear goals is needed at EU level, as a societal and political choice, to plan and motivate research and innovation in regulatory safety assessment.

From Elsevier via Jisc Publications Router ; History: accepted 2020-11-24, issue date 2020-11-26 ; Article version: AM ; Publication status: Accepted ; Safety assessment of chemicals and products in the European Union (EU) is based on decades of practice using primarily animal toxicity studies to model hazardous effects in humans. Nevertheless, there has been a long-standing ethical concern about using experimental animals. In addition, animal models may fail to predict adverse effects in humans. This has provided a strong motivation to develop and use new approach methodologies and other alternative sources of evidence. A key challenge for this is integration of evidence from different sources. This paper is a call for action with regard to development, validation, and implementation of modern safety assessment approaches for human health assessment by means of focused applied research and development with three strands: (a) to improve screening and priority setting, (b) to enhance and partially replace animal studies under the current regulatory schemes and eventually (c) to fully replace animal studies, while achieving at least the same level of protection. For this gradual but systematic replacement of animal studies, a long-term concerted and coordinated effort with clear goals is needed at EU level, as a societal and political choice, to plan and motivate research and innovation in regulatory safety assessment.

From Elsevier via Jisc Publications Router ; History: accepted 2020-11-24, epub 2020-12-03, issue date 2021-02-28 ; Article version: VoR ; Publication status: Published ; Funder: ITF; FundRef: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100010428 ; Safety assessment of chemicals and products in the European Union (EU) is based on decades of practice using primarily animal toxicity studies to model hazardous effects in humans. Nevertheless, there has been a long-standing ethical concern about using experimental animals. In addition, animal models may fail to predict adverse effects in humans. This has provided a strong motivation to develop and use new approach methodologies and other alternative sources of evidence. A key challenge for this is integration of evidence from different sources. This paper is a call for action with regard to development, validation, and implementation of modern safety assessment approaches for human health assessment by means of focused applied research and development with three strands: (a) to improve screening and priority setting, (b) to enhance and partially replace animal studies under the current regulatory schemes and eventually (c) to fully replace animal studies, while achieving at least the same level of protection. For this gradual but systematic replacement of animal studies, a long-term concerted and coordinated effort with clear goals is needed at EU level, as a societal and political choice, to plan and motivate research and innovation in regulatory safety assessment.

Most of the discourse in the area of peer review takes place within the context of the assessment of papers for inclusion in scientific journals. There is a need to explore the use of peer review within the very specific context of the work of EU agencies providing scientific advice and technical support and identify the specific challenges of utilising peer review in this environment. This paper provides a reflection on the key principles applicable to the use of peer review approaches within the context of such agencies. It differs in a number of ways from the classical peer review in academic publishing. This reflection is also intended to contribute to an on-going debate on developments taking place within the broader scientific community in relation to peer review. ; The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (EU) set up a number of decentralised Agencies to carry out specific legal, technical or scientific tasks within the EU. In 2013, the Heads of EU Agencies Network decided to set up a specialised sub-network of EU Agencies tasked to provide scientific and technical advice to EU Institutions, Member States and other relevant EU-policy makers. It is called EU Agencies Network on Scientific Advise (EU-ANSA).