SummaryThe

Inclusion of alternative methods that replace, reduce, or refine (3R) animal testing within regulatory safety evaluations of chemicals generally faces many hurdles. The goal of the current work is to i) collect responses from key stakeholders involved in food safety evaluations on what they consider the most relevant factors that influence the acceptance and use of 3R methods and to ii) use these responses to formulate activities needed to increase the acceptance and use of 3R methods, particularly for kinetics. The stakeholders were contacted by e-mail for their opinions, asking the respondents to write down three barriers and/or drivers and scoring these by distributing 5 points over the three factors. The main barriers that obtained the highest aggregated scores were i) uncertain predictability 3R methods/lack of validation, ii) insufficient guidance regulators/industry and iii) insufficient harmonization of legislation. The major driver identified was the possibility of 3R methods to provide more mechanistic information. Based on the results, recommendations are given to enhance the acceptance and application of 3R toxicokinetic methods in food safety evaluations. These include steering of regulatory data requirements as well as creating (funding) opportunities for development and validation of alternative methods for kinetics and development of guidances.

This is the report on Optimisation of the Post-validation Process, one of a series of workshops organised by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). ECVAM's main goal, as defined in 1993 by its Scientific Advisory Committee, is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods which are of importance to the biosciences and which reduce, refine or replace the use of laboratory animals. One of the first priorities set by ECVAM was the implementation of procedures that would enable it to become well-informed about the state-of-the-art of non-animal testing in regulatory procedures. It was decided that this would be best achieved by the organisation of ECVAM workshops on specific topics, at which small groups of invited experts would review the current status of in vitro tests and their potential uses, and make recommendations about the best ways forward (1).The number of alternative test methods continues to increase. However, these new methods are not automatically accepted and implemented for use for regulatory purposes. From the experience acquired during the last decade, we know that, after the scientific process of validation, finalised by an ESAC statement, the process of acceptance by reg-ulators often takes a long time. ECVAM therefore