New approach methodologies in human regulatory toxicology – Not if, but how and when!

Sebastian Schmeisser(Federal Institute for Risk Assessment), Andrea Miccoli(Federal Institute for Risk Assessment), Martin von Bergen�(Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research), Elisabet Berggren(Joint Research Centre), Albert Braeuning(Federal Institute for Risk Assessment), Wibke Busch(Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research), Christian Desaintes(European Commission), Anne Gourmelon(Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques), Roland Grafström(Karolinska Institutet), Joshua Harrill(Environmental Protection Agency), Thomas Härtung(Johns Hopkins University), Matthias Herzler(Federal Institute for Risk Assessment), George E.N. Kass(European Food Safety Authority), Nicole Kleinstreuer(National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), Marcel Leist(University of Konstanz), Mirjam Luijten(National Institute for Public Health and the Environment), Philip Marx‐Stoelting(Federal Institute for Risk Assessment), Oliver Poetz(Natural and Medical Sciences Institute), Bennard van Ravenzwaay(Wageningen University & Research), R Roggeband(Procter & Gamble (United States)), Vera Rogiers(Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Adrian Roth(Roche (Switzerland)), Pascal Sandérs(Centre Hospitalier de Fougères), Russell S. Thomas(Environmental Protection Agency), Anne Marie Vinggaard(Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques), Mathieu Vinken(Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Bob van de Water(Leiden University), Andreas Luch(Federal Institute for Risk Assessment), Tewes Tralau(Federal Institute for Risk Assessment)
Environment International
July 4, 2023
Cited by 320Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

The predominantly animal-centric approach of chemical safety assessment has increasingly come under pressure. Society is questioning overall performance, sustainability, continued relevance for human health risk assessment and ethics of this system, demanding a change of paradigm. At the same time, the scientific toolbox used for risk assessment is continuously enriched by the development of "New Approach Methodologies" (NAMs). While this term does not define the age or the state of readiness of the innovation, it covers a wide range of methods, including quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) predictions, high-throughput screening (HTS) bioassays, omics applications, cell cultures, organoids, microphysiological systems (MPS), machine learning models and artificial intelligence (AI). In addition to promising faster and more efficient toxicity testing, NAMs have the potential to fundamentally transform today's regulatory work by allowing more human-relevant decision-making in terms of both hazard and exposure assessment. Yet, several obstacles hamper a broader application of NAMs in current regulatory risk assessment. Constraints in addressing repeated-dose toxicity, with particular reference to the chronic toxicity, and hesitance from relevant stakeholders, are major challenges for the implementation of NAMs in a broader context. Moreover, issues regarding predictivity, reproducibility and quantification need to be addressed and regulatory and legislative frameworks need to be adapted to NAMs. The conceptual perspective presented here has its focus on hazard assessment and is grounded on the main findings and conclusions from a symposium and workshop held in Berlin in November 2021. It intends to provide further insights into how NAMs can be gradually integrated into chemical risk assessment aimed at protection of human health, until eventually the current paradigm is replaced by an animal-free "Next Generation Risk Assessment" (NGRA).


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis