Food for thought...on alternative methods for chemical safety testing.

About 70 million chemicals have been synthesized, as registered in Chemical Abstracts Service. It is not really clear how many are found in consumer products and the environment. Why not? First, because registrations are only required for certain production volumes. Second, no organization or entity tracks increases in production volumes. I am not aware, for example, of very many new chemicals (in Europe, those notified after September 1981) that have been reregistered and subjected to additional testing demands due to higher production volume; this might be a reason why practically all new chemicals (registered from 1981-2006) have been pre-registered again for ReACH, from which they are exempted in principle. Similarly, no procedures exist to track when thresholds for registration are exceeded on a european level by different manufacturers combined, when originally only tiny amounts were produced. In europe, until 2007, the threshold for notification was 100 kg (now 1 ton) per year, which resulted in about 300 files per year. In the smaller US chemical industry the number of premarketing notifications is about 2,000 per year, giving us an idea about how few chemicals are accurately monitored in europe. third, requirements for registration differ considerably. Many chemicals enter our markets as components of products. Who registers when a sport shoe manufactured somewhere in Asia is imported and its fashionable, decorative glitter is produced by chemicals? Sure customs (and prior to ReACH directive 67/548/eeC) ask for documentation but in practice many importers are not aware of every component of the product. Fourth, many additional compounds, especially in the environment, are decomposition and reaction products. Fifth, things get really difficult when we also have to think of different formulations as particles. It is well known that nanoparticles (i.e. chemical particles typically between 1 and 100 nm) change their behavior depending on size and shape. A whole new field of nanotoxicology is emerging, which will be the subject of a future article in this series. But effects relevant to toxicity also occur on a larger scale. We know that both crystal sizes and shapes of drugs affect bioavailability and side-effects. A reasonable estimate is that people are exposed to about 100,000 relevant synthetic chemicals (84,000 are listed in the cumulative US tSCA inventory, 100,000 in the eU eINeCS inventory) in contrast to the 5,000 to 10,000 for which actually (widely varying in depth) safety assessments exist. the knowledge gap is, from this view, tremendous. this gap is even deeper if we consider the effect of chemicals in mixtures, where synergies may occur as recently addressed by the eU Council of environment Ministers (http:// register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st17/st17820.en09.pdf). However, we are most likely exposed to an even larger number of chemicals, given all the naturally occurring sources. I was once very much impressed when I learned that a plant extract used as a drug can contain 40,000 substances. With regard to possible toxic properties, there is no difference between a substance produced by chemical synthesis or by the metabolism of an organism – on the contrary, some of the most toxic substances are “natural” because evolution has optimized these poisons. Similarly, there are byproducts from chemical synthesis to be considered. Petrochemicals fall somewhere in-between, as they are very heterogeneous as natural products to start with and fractionation will always remain partial.

[1]  Gerald M. Maggiora,et al.  On Outliers and Activity Cliffs-Why QSAR Often Disappoints , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Lessons Learned from Alternative Methods and their Validation for a New Toxicology in the 21st Century , 2010, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[3]  R Kroes,et al.  The threshold of toxicological concern concept in risk assessment. , 2005, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[4]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Food for thought ... on the evolution of toxicology and the phasing out of animal testing. , 2008, ALTEX.

[5]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Toward a New Toxicology — Evolution or Revolution? , 2008, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[6]  Michael Schwarz,et al.  The integrated project ReProTect: a novel approach in reproductive toxicity hazard assessment. , 2005, Reproductive toxicology.

[7]  H. Clewell,et al.  Acrylamide: Review of Toxicity Data and Dose-Response Analyses for Cancer and Noncancer Effects , 2006, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[8]  Helmut Greim,et al.  Toxicological comments to the discussion about REACH , 2006, Archives of Toxicology.

[9]  I C Munro,et al.  The Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) in risk assessment. , 2008, Toxicology letters.

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

[11]  L. Maxim,et al.  Interspecies comparisons of the toxicity of asbestos and synthetic vitreous fibers: a weight-of-the-evidence approach. , 2001, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[12]  Sebastian Hoffmann,et al.  Food for thought ... on in silico methods in toxicology. , 2009, ALTEX.

[13]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Food for thought... on cell culture. , 2007, ALTEX.

[14]  T. Hartung Food for thought ... on validation. , 2007, ALTEX.

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

[16]  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.

[17]  Stephen R. Johnson,et al.  The Trouble with QSAR (or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Embrace Fallacy) , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  Sebastian Hoffmann,et al.  Diagnosis: toxic!--trying to apply approaches of clinical diagnostics and prevalence in toxicology considerations. , 2005, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[19]  I. Selikoff Historical developments and perspectives in inorganic fiber toxicity in man. , 1990, Environmental health perspectives.

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

[21]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  "ToxRTool", a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data. , 2009, Toxicology letters.

[22]  T Seidle,et al.  Bringing toxicology into the 21st century: a global call to action. , 2009, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[23]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Food for thought... on the economics of animal testing. , 2009, ALTEX.

[24]  Melvin E. Andersen,et al.  The need for a new toxicity testing and risk analysis paradigm to implement REACH or any other large scale testing initiative , 2006, Archives of Toxicology.

[25]  Thomas Hartung A Toxicology for the 21st Century—Mapping the Road Ahead , 2009, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[26]  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.

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

[28]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Are in vitro tests suitable for regulatory use? , 2009, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[29]  Thomas Hartung Food for thought... on evidence-based toxicology. , 2009, ALTEX.

[30]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  The dawning of a new age of toxicology. , 2008, ALTEX.

[31]  Thomas Hartung,et al.  Food for thought... on animal tests. , 2008, ALTEX.

[32]  E. Silbergeld Commentary: The Rôle of Toxicology in Prevention and Precaution , 2005, International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health.

[33]  W. Parzefall Minireview on the toxicity of dietary acrylamide. , 2008, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.