How are reproductive toxicity and developmental toxicity addressed in REACH dossiers?

The first deadline for REACH registration has passed and registration data for the first set of substances are now public. According to ECHA, 4,599 substances have been registered so far, and the corresponding dossiers of many of them are now partially available in a public database. A sample of 400 records was randomly selected and analyzed with regard to reproductive and developmental toxicity. Most dossiers do not follow the strict requirements in the official guidelines, and some dossiers lack some very basic information. A broad variety of existing data is used, and the read-across opportunity is very much exploited. Surprisingly, a number of in vivo tests have been performed already, apparently for REACH purposes, in spite of the legal requirement to make a public proposal and wait for authorization by ECHA. The number of animals used so far, plus the number of animals that will derive from testing proposals of the first REACH deadline, is very high; it may add up to 1.6 million animals just to accomplish reproductive and developmental toxicity endpoints if the data collected from 400 dossiers are extrapolated to the total number of registered substances. In vitro tests are completely absent, even though there are many tests that may be used to complement either read-across strategies or partially reliable existing data. It is recommended, in the spirit of REACH, to protect human health through an in-depth assessment of the chemicals and simultaneously, to promote the use of in vitro alternatives.

[1]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Food for thought ... on alternative methods for cosmetics safety testing. , 2008, ALTEX.

[2]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Re-evaluation of animal numbers and costs for in vivo tests to accomplish REACH legislation requirements for chemicals - a report by the transatlantic think tank for toxicology (t(4)). , 2009, ALTEX.

[3]  T Seidle,et al.  The development of new concepts for assessing reproductive toxicity applicable to large scale toxicological programmes. , 2007, Current pharmaceutical design.

[4]  T. Hartung.  Toxicology for the twenty-first century , 2009, Nature.

[5]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Food for thought...on alternative methods for chemical safety testing. , 2010, ALTEX.

[6]  Costanza Rovida.  Food for thought ... why no new in vitro tests will be done for REACH by registrants. , 2010, ALTEX.

[7]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Food for thought ... on alternative methods for nanoparticle safety testing. , 2010, ALTEX.

[8]  U. Tillmann,et al.  A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. , 1997, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[9]  Susanne Bremer,et al.  Validation of the Embryonic Stem Cell Test in the International ECVAM Validation Study on Three In Vitro Embryotoxicity Tests , 2004, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[10]  Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy , 2001 .

[11]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Chemical regulators have overreached , 2009, Nature.

[12]  P. West,et al.  Predicting human developmental toxicity of pharmaceuticals using human embryonic stem cells and metabolomics. , 2010, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[13]  Horst Spielmann,et al.  Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation , 2004, Archives of Toxicology.

[14]  Sharon Munn,et al.  Assessment of additional testing needs under REACH Effects of (Q)SARS, risk based testing and voluntary industry initiatives , 2003 .

[15]  Valérie Zuang,et al.  Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects—2010 , 2011, Archives of Toxicology.

[16]  J C Madden,et al.  Integrating (Q)SAR models, expert systems and read-across approaches for the prediction of developmental toxicity. , 2010, Reproductive toxicology.

[17]  Hilda Witters,et al.  The ReProTect Feasibility Study, a novel comprehensive in vitro approach to detect reproductive toxicants. , 2010, Reproductive toxicology.

[18]  N. Gilbert.  Streamlined chemical tests rebuffed , 2010, Nature.

[19]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  That which must not, can not be... A reply to the EChA and EDF responses to the REACH analysis of animal use and costs. , 2009, ALTEX.

[20]  Aldert Piersma,et al.  A Review of the Implementation of the Embryonic Stem Cell Test (EST) , 2009, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[21]  Andrea E M Seiler,et al.  The validated embryonic stem cell test to predict embryotoxicity in vitro , 2011, Nature Protocols.

[22]  N. Gilbert.  Data gaps threaten chemical safety law , 2011, Nature.