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.

The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the NOAEL approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). Most of the modifications made to the SC guidance of 2009 concern the section providing guidance on how to apply the BMD approach. Model averaging is recommended as the preferred method for calculating the BMD confidence interval, while acknowledging that the respective tools are still under development and may not be easily accessible to all. Therefore, selecting or rejecting models is still considered as a suboptimal alternative. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed, and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) has been introduced instead of the log-likelihood to characterise the goodness of fit of different mathematical models to a dose-response data set. A flowchart has also been inserted in this update to guide the reader step-by-step when performing a BMD analysis, as well as a chapter on the distributional part of dose-response models and a template for reporting a BMD analysis in a complete and transparent manner. Finally, it is recommended to always report the BMD confidence interval rather than the value of the BMD. The lower bound (BMDL) is needed as a potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL per ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re-evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 SC guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly smaller (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health-based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the expected wide application of the BMD approach.

Despite the fact that more than 5000 safety-related studies have been published on bisphenol A (BPA), there seems to be no resolution of the apparently deadlocked controversy as to whether exposure of the general population to BPA causes adverse effects due to its estrogenicity. Therefore, the Advisory Committee of the German Society of Toxicology reviewed the background and cutting-edge topics of this BPA controversy. The current tolerable daily intake value (TDI) of 0.05 mg/kg body weight [bw]/day, derived by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), is mainly based on body weight changes in two- and three-generation studies in mice and rats. Recently, these studies and the derivation of the TDI have been criticized. After having carefully considered all arguments, the Committee had to conclude that the criticism was scientifically not justified; moreover, recently published additional data further support the reliability of the two-and three-generation studies demonstrating a lack of estrogen-dependent effects at and below doses on which the current TDI is based. A frequently discussed topic is whether doses below 5 mg/ kg bw/day may cause adverse health effects in laboratory animals. Meanwhile, it has become clear that positive results from some explorative studies have not been confirmed in subsequent studies with higher numbers of animals or a priori defined hypotheses. Particularly relevant are some recent studies with negative outcomes that addressed effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and the prostate in rodents for extrapolation to the human situation. The Committee came to the conclusion that rodent data can well be used as a basis for human risk evaluation. Currently published conjectures that rats are insensitive to estrogens compared to humans can be refuted. Data from toxicokinetics studies show that the half-life of BPA in adult human subjects is less than 2 hours and BPA is completely recovered in urine as BPA-conjugates. Tissue deconjugation of BPA-glucuronide and -sulfate may occur. Because of the extremely low quantities, it is only of minor relevance for BPA toxicity. Biomonitoring studies have been used to estimate human BPA exposure and show that the daily intake of BPA is far below the TDI for the general population. Further topics addressed in this article include reasons why some studies on BPA are not reproducible; the relevance of oral versus non-oral exposure routes; the degree to which newborns are at higher systemic BPA exposure; increased BPA exposure by infusions in intensive care units; mechanisms of action other than estrogen receptor activation; and the current regulatory status in Europe, as well as in the USA, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia. Overall, the Committee concluded that the current TDI for BPA is adequately justified and that the available evidence indicates that BPA exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies.

European data on the polymorphic metabolism of debrisoquine, sparteine, dextromethorphan and mephenytoin have been collected. No significant difference in phenotype frequencies was found between the separate series for debrisoquine, sparteine and dextromethorphan, which supports the claim that these probe drugs reflect the same enzyme polymorphism. The mean frequency of the phenotype slow debrisoquine metaboliser was 7.65% based on 5005 determinations. The overall mean reflecting all three drugs and 8764 determinations was 7.40%. This is consistent with a gene frequency of 0.27 (95% confidence interval 0.26-0.28). The overall mean of the phenotype slow metaboliser of mephenytoin was 3.52% corresponding to a gene frequency of 0.19 (confidence interval 0.17-0.20). The incidence of slow metabolism of debrisoquine and possibly also of S-mephenytoin was homogeneous in the samples from European populations. This is of considerable interest as interethnic differences are now being found both in the phenotypic characters as well as the genotypes of polymorphic drug oxidation.

The Scientific Committee confirms that the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) is a pragmatic screening and prioritisation tool for use in food safety assessment. This Guidance provides clear step-bystep instructions for use of the TTC approach. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined and the use of the TTC decision tree is explained. The approach can be used when the chemical structure of the substance is known, there are limited chemical-specific toxicity data and the exposure can be estimated. The TTC approach should not be used for substances for which EU food/feed legislation requires the submission of toxicity data or when sufficient data are available for a risk assessment or if the substance under consideration falls into one of the exclusion categories. For substances that have the potential to be DNA-reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens based on the weight of evidence, the relevant TTC value is 0.0025 lg/kg body weight (bw) per day. For organophosphates or carbamates, the relevant TTC value is 0.3 lg/kg bw per day. All other substances are grouped according to the Cramer classification. The TTC values for Cramer Classes I, II and III are 30 lg/kg bw per day, 9 lg/kg bw per day and 1.5 lg/kg bw per day, respectively. For substances with exposures below the TTC values, the probability that they would cause adverse health effects is low. If the estimated exposure to a substance is higher than the relevant TTC value, a non-TTC approach is required to reach a conclusion on potential adverse health effects.