The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7-9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5-7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

Tests with vertebrates are an integral part of environmental hazard identification and risk assessment of chemicals, plant protection products, pharmaceuticals, biocides, feed additives and effluents. These tests raise ethical and economic concerns and are considered as inappropriate for assessing all of the substances and effluents that require regulatory testing. Hence, there is a strong demand for replacement, reduction and refinement strategies and methods. However, until now alternative approaches have only rarely been used in regulatory settings. This review provides an overview on current regulations of chemicals and the requirements for animal tests in environmental hazard and risk assessment. It aims to highlight the potential areas for alternative approaches in environmental hazard identification and risk assessment. Perspectives and limitations of alternative approaches to animal tests using vertebrates in environmental toxicology, i.e. mainly fish and amphibians, are discussed. Free access to existing (proprietary) animal test data, availability of validated alternative methods and a practical implementation of conceptual approaches such as the Adverse Outcome Pathways and Integrated Testing Strategies were identified as major requirements towards the successful development and implementation of alternative approaches. Although this article focusses on European regulations, its considerations and conclusions are of global relevance.

Assessment of the acute systemic oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicities, skin and eye irritancy, and skin sensitisation potential of chemicals is required under regulatory schemes worldwide. In vivo studies conducted to assess these endpoints can sometimes be associated with substantial adverse effects in the test animals, and their use should always be scientifically justified. It has been argued that while information obtained from such acute tests provides data needed to meet classification and labelling regulations, it is of limited value for hazard and risk assessments. Inconsistent application of in vitro replacements, protocol requirements across regions, and bridging principles also contribute to unnecessary and redundant animal testing. Assessment of data from acute oral and dermal toxicity testing demonstrates that acute dermal testing rarely provides value for hazard assessment purposes when an acute oral study has been conducted. Options to waive requirements for acute oral and inhalation toxicity testing should be employed to avoid unnecessary in vivo studies. In vitro irritation models should receive wider adoption and be used to meet regulatory needs. Global requirements for sensitisation testing need continued harmonisation for both substance and mixture assessments. This paper highlights where alternative approaches or elimination of tests can reduce and refine animal use for acute toxicity requirements.

Evaluation of the safety of new chemicals and pharmaceuticals requires the combination of information from various sources (e.g. in vitro, in silico and in vivo) to provide an assessment of risk to human health and the environment. The authors have identified opportunities to maximize the predictivity of this information to humans while reducing animal use in four key areas; (i) accelerating the uptake of in vitro methods; (ii) incorporating the latest science into safety pharmacology assessments; (iii) optimizing rodent study design in biological development and (iv) consolidating approaches in developmental and reproductive toxicology. Through providing a forum for open discussion of novel proposals, reviewing current research and obtaining expert opinion in each of the four areas, the authors have developed recommendations on good practice and future strategy.

No abstract