REACH, non-testing approaches and the urgent need for a change in mind set.

The objectives of REACH cannot be achieved under the current risk assessment approach. A change in mind set among all the relevant stakeholders is needed: risk assessment should move away from a labor-intensive and animal-consuming approach to intelligent and pragmatic testing, by combining exposure and hazard data effectively and trying to group chemicals (category approaches). The focus should be on reducing the overall uncertainties of 30,000 chemicals while acknowledging the existence of the uncertainty paradox: reducing uncertainty in the assessment of individual chemicals following the classical chemical-by-chemical approach as we have in previous decades will result in a prolongation of uncertainty for the entire group of 30,000 chemicals as a whole. With the first REACH registration deadline (2010) rapidly approaching, a mind set change is urgently needed. We can speed up the regulatory acceptance process, starting with the maximum use of currently available exposure and hazard data, tools and models. Optimal use should also be made of experimental exposure and hazard data generated under REACH. Only such an approach will make it possible to obtain a sufficient level of information within the time frame of REACH. A much more intensive dialogue between stakeholders is necessary.

[1]  Wout Slob,et al.  A retrospective analysis of the two-generation study: what is the added value of the second generation? , 2007, Reproductive toxicology.

[2]  Theo Vermeire,et al.  Risk assessment of chemicals : an introduction , 2007 .

[3]  Christina Benighaus,et al.  Stakeholder involvement and dissemination - results of two workshops : OSIRIS - optimized strategies for risk assessment of industrial chemicals through integration of non-test and test information , 2009 .

[4]  Christine Northage.  EASEing into the future. , 2005, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[5]  U. Gundert-Remy,et al.  Exposure-triggered reproductive toxicity testing under the REACH legislation: a proposal to define significant/relevant exposure. , 2008, Toxicology letters.

[6]  Chihae Yang,et al.  Toxicity Data Informatics: Supporting a New Paradigm for Toxicity Prediction , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[7]  S. Bradbury,et al.  Meeting the scientific needs of ecological risk assessment in a regulatory context. , 2004, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  Charles W M Bodar,et al.  The European Union risk assessment on zinc and zinc compounds: the process and the facts. , 2005, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[9]  Valérie Zuang,et al.  The ECVAM International Validation Study on in Vitro Tests for Acute Skin Irritation: Report on the Validity of the EPISKIN and EpiDerm Assays and on the Skin Integrity Function Test a , 2007, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[10]  A H Piersma,et al.  A Category Approach for Reproductive Effects of Phthalates , 2006, Critical reviews in toxicology.

[11]  Alexius Freyberger,et al.  The enhancement of the subacute repeat dose toxicity test OECD TG 407 for the detection of endocrine active chemicals: comparison with toxicity tests of longer duration , 2007, Archives of Toxicology.

[12]  D. van de Meent,et al.  Environmental Exposure Assessment , 2007 .

[13]  J. Hengstler,et al.  The REACH concept and its impact on toxicological sciences. , 2006, Toxicology.

[14]  Joanne L. Martin,et al.  A Retrospective , 1988 .

[15]  Wouter Fransman,et al.  Stoffenmanager exposure model: development of a quantitative algorithm. , 2008, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[16]  Munn Sharon j.,et al.  Alternative Approaches Can Reduce the Use of Test Animals under REACH. , 2004 .

[17]  J. G. Hengstler,et al.  Alternative methods to safety studies in experimental animals: role in the risk assessment of chemicals under the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH) , 2008, Archives of Toxicology.

[18]  Wout Slob,et al.  A retrospective analysis of the added value of the rat two-generation reproductive toxicity study versus the rat subchronic toxicity study. , 2007, Reproductive toxicology.

[19]  Wout Slob,et al.  A retrospective analysis of developmental toxicity studies in rat and rabbit: what is the added value of the rabbit as an additional test species? , 2008, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

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

[21]  A G Renwick,et al.  Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern--guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. , 2005, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[22]  Johannes J M van de Sandt,et al.  Prediction of in vivo embryotoxic effect levels with a combination of in vitro studies and PBPK modelling. , 2006, Toxicology letters.

[23]  J. Steensberg.  Environmental health decision making. The politics of disease prevention. , 1989, Scandinavian journal of social medicine. Supplementum.

[24]  Anthony R Scialli,et al.  The challenge of reproductive and developmental toxicology under REACH. , 2008, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[25]  Helmut Greim,et al.  Application of the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) to the safety evaluation of cosmetic ingredients. , 2007, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[26]  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.

[27]  M. Dent,et al.  Strengths and limitations of using repeat-dose toxicity studies to predict effects on fertility. , 2007, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[28]  Andrew P. Worth,et al.  Intelligent Testing Strategies , 2007 .

[29]  Ketil Hylland,et al.  Testing REACH draft technical guidance notes for conducting chemical safety assessments-the experience of a downstream user of a preparation. , 2008, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[30]  Barry L. Johnson.  Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Introduction, Second Edition , 2009 .

[31]  Theo Vermeire,et al.  Risk assessment of chemicals , 2021, Bioanalytical Tools in Water Quality Assessment.

[32]  Erik Tielemans,et al.  'Stoffenmanager', a web-based control banding tool using an exposure process model. , 2008, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[33]  N King,et al.  Risk assessment and management of new and existing chemicals. , 1996, Environmental toxicology and pharmacology.

[34]  John D. Walker,et al.  Use of Physicochemical Property Limits to Develop Rules for Identifying Chemical Substances with no Skin Irritation or Corrosion Potential , 2004 .

[35]  A. Worth,et al.  Q)SARs for Predicting Effects Relating to Reproductive Toxicity , 2008 .

[36]  Hans Kromhout,et al.  Tools for regulatory assessment of occupational exposure: development and challenges , 2007, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology.

[37]  Juha Laitinen,et al.  Task-based dermal exposure models for regulatory risk assessment. , 2006, The Annals of occupational hygiene.