4.1 Article

Local Tolerance Testing Under REACH: Accepted Non-animal Methods Are Not on Equal Footing with Animal Tests

Journal

ATLA-ALTERNATIVES TO LABORATORY ANIMALS
Volume 44, Issue 3, Pages 281-299

Publisher

FRAME
DOI: 10.1177/026119291604400311

Keywords

authorisation of chemicals; evaluation; eye irritation; hazard classification; IATA; integrated approaches for testing and assessment; integrated testing strategies; irritation; ITS; skin corrosion; serious eye damage; REACH; registration; regulatory toxicity testing; skin sensitisation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available