Science based guidance for the assessment of endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals

The European legislation on plant protection products (Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009) and biocides (Directive 98/8/EC), as well as the regulation concerning chemicals (Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 ‘REACH’) only support the marketing and use of chemical products on the basis that they do not induce endocrine disruption in humans or non-target species. However, there is currently no agreed guidance on how to identify and evaluate endocrine activity and disruption. Consequently, an ECETOC task force was formed to provide scientific criteria that may be used within the context of these three legislative documents. Specific scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties that integrate information from both regulatory (eco)toxicity studies and mechanistic/screening studies are proposed. These criteria combine the nature of the adverse effects detected in studies which give concern for endocrine toxicity with an understanding of the mode of action of toxicity so that adverse effects can be explained scientifically. The criteria developed are presented in the form of flow charts for assessing relevant effects for both humans and wildlife species. In addition, since not all chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties are of equal hazard, assessment of potency is also proposed to discriminate chemicals of high concern from those of lower concern. The guidance presented in this paper includes refinements made to an initial proposal following discussion of the criteria at a workshop of invited regulatory, academic and industry scientists.     

The impact of REACH on classification for human health hazards

The REACH Regulation represents a major piece of chemical legislation in the EU and requires manufacturers and importers of chemicals to assess the safety of their substances. The classification of substances for their hazards is one of the crucial elements in this process. We analysed the effect of REACH on classification for human health endpoints by comparing information from REACH registration dossiers with legally binding, harmonised classifications. The analysis included 142 chemicals produced at very high tonnages in the EU, the majority of which have already been assessed in the past. Of 20 substances lacking a harmonised classification, 12 chemicals were classified in REACH registration dossiers. More importantly, 37 substances with harmonised classifications for human health endpoints had stricter classifications in registration dossiers and 29 of these were classified for at least one additional endpoint not covered by the harmonised classification. Substance-specific analyses suggest that one third of these additional endpoints emerged from experimental studies performed to fulfil information requirements under REACH, while two thirds resulted from a new assessment of pre-REACH studies. We conclude that REACH leads to an improved hazard characterisation even for substances with a potentially good data basis.     

Oral bioaccessibility testing and read-across hazard assessment of nickel compounds

In vitro metal ion bioaccessibility, as a measure of bioavailability, can be used to read-across toxicity information from data-rich, source substances to data-poor, target substances. To meet the data requirements for oral systemic toxicity endpoints under the REACH Regulation in Europe, 12 nickel substances underwent bioaccessibility testing in stomach and intestinal fluids. A read-across paradigm was developed based on the correlation between gastric bioaccessibility and in vivo acute oral toxicity. The oral LD₅₀ values were well predicted by nickel release (R² = 0.91). Samples releasing <48% available nickel (mg Ni released/mg available Ni × 100) are predicted to have an LD₅₀ > 2000 mg/kg; while samples releasing >76% available nickel are expected to have an LD₅₀ between 300 and 2000 mg/kg. The hazard classifications (European Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Chemical Substances and Mixtures) for all oral systemic endpoints were evaluated based on read-across from three source nickel compounds (sulfate, subsulfide, oxide). Samples releasing <48% available nickel were read-across from nickel oxides and subsulfide. Samples releasing >76% Ni were read-across from nickel sulfate. This assessment suggests that nickel chloride and dihydroxide should be less stringently classified and nickel sulfamate should receive a more stringent classification for oral systemic endpoints than currently assigned.     

Models for oral uptake of nanoparticles in consumer products

Presently, many consumer products contain nano-sized materials (NMs) to improve material properties, product quality and ease of use. NMs in food additives and in cosmetic articles (e.g., tooth paste) may be taken up by the oral route. As adverse effects of environmental nanoparticles, like ultrafine particles, have been reported, consumers worry about potential risks when using products containing NMs. The review focuses on metal and metal oxide NMs as common additives in tooth paste and in food industry and exposure by the oral route. Testing of NMs for oral exposure is very complex because differences in the diet, in mucus secretion and composition, in pH, in gastrointestinal transit time and in gastrointestinal flora influence NM uptake. Acellular (mucus, saliva) and epithelial layer of the orogastrointestinal barrier are described. Expected exposure doses, interaction of the NMs with mucus and permeation through the epithelium as well as in vivo data are mentioned. The role of in vitro models for the study of parameters relevant for ingested NMs is discussed.     

Application of in silico modelling to estimate toxicity of migrating substances from food packaging

This study derived toxicity estimates for a set of 136 chemical migrants from food packaging materials using in silico (computational) modelling and read across approaches. Where available, the predicted results for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity were compared with published experimental data. As the packaging compounds are subject to safety assessment, the migrating substances were more likely to be negative for both the endpoints. A set of structural analogues with positive experimental data for carcinogenicity and/or mutagenicity was therefore used as a positive comparator. The results showed that a weight of evidence assembled from different in silico models and read-across from already-tested structurally similar compounds can provide a rapid and reliable means for rapid screening of new yet-untested intentional or unintentional chemical compounds that may migrate to packaged foodstuffs.     

Safety of botanical ingredients in personal care products/cosmetics

The key issue of the safety assessment of botanical ingredients in personal care products (PCP) is the phytochemical characterisation of the plant source, data on contamination, adulteration and hazardous residues. The comparative approach used in the safety assessment of GM-plants may be applied to novel botanical PCP ingredients. Comparator(s) are the parent plant or varieties of the same species. Chemical grouping includes definition of chemical groups suitable for a read-across approach; it allows the estimation of toxicological endpoints on the basis of data from related substances (congeneric groups) with physical/chemical properties producing similar toxicities. The Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) and Dermal Sensitisation Threshold (DST) are tools for the assessment of trace substances or minor ingredients. The evaluation of skin penetration of substances present in human food is unnecessary, whereas mixtures may be assessed on the basis of physical/chemical properties of individual substances. Adverse dermal effects of botanicals include irritation, sensitisation, phototoxicity and immediate-type allergy. The experience from dietary supplements or herbal medicines showed that being natural is not equivalent to being safe. Pragmatic approaches for quality and safety standards of botanical ingredients are needed; consumer safety should be the first objective of conventional and botanical PCP ingredients.     

Risk assessment of nanomaterials in cosmetics: a European union perspective

In Europe, the data requirements for the hazard and exposure characterisation of chemicals are defined according to the REACH regulation and its guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), and its guidance documents; available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:396:0001:0849:EN:PDF; and at: http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_document/information_requirements_en.htm). This is the basis for any related risk assessment. The standard reference for the testing of cosmetic ingredients is the SCCP’s ‘Notes of Guidance for the Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients and their Safety Evaluation’ (The SCCP’s Notes of Guidance for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation (2006); available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_03j.pdf), which refers to the OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals (The OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals as a collection of the most relevant internationally agreed testing methods used by government, industry and independent laboratories to assess the safety of chemical products; available at: http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,2686,en_2649_34377_1_1_1_1_37407,00.html). According to the cosmetics directive [76/768/EEC], compounds that are classified as mutagenic, carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction are banned for the use in cosmetic products. Since December 2010, the respective labelling is based on the rules of regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 (Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Official Journal L 353, 31/12/2008, pages 1–1355; available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:353:0001:1355:en:PDF) on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP). There is no further impact from the CLP regulation on cosmetic products, because regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 on cosmetic products defines its own labelling rules (Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products; available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:342:0059:0209:en:PDF). Special notification procedures are mandatory for preservatives, colourants and UV-filters where a safety approval from the European ‘Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety’ (SCCS) is needed prior to marketing. The risk assessment of nanomaterials in consumer products still poses a significant challenge as highlighted by the example of UV-filters in sunscreens since nanomaterials cannot be classified as a homogenous group of chemicals but still need to be addressed in risk characterisation on a case by case basis.     

The challenge of using read-across within the EU REACH regulatory framework; how much uncertainty is too much? Dipropylene glycol methyl ether acetate,an exemplary case study

The use of read-across of data within a group of structurally similar substances potentially allows one to characterise the hazards of a substance without resorting to additional animal studies. However the use of read-across is not without challenges, particularly when used to address the needs of a regulatory programme such as the EU REACH regulation. This paper presents a case study where a previously accepted read-across approach was used to address several data gaps in a REACH registration dossier but was subsequently rejected in part by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), resulting in the requirement to perform a developmental toxicity study in rodents. Using this case study, this paper illustrates some of the practical challenges faced when making use of read-across, particularly with respect to addressing the uncertainty associated with the use of read-across; showcasing the scientific justification and highlighting some of the potential implications/opportunities for future cases.     

Health risk assessment procedures for endocrine disrupting compounds within different regulatory frameworks in the European Union

In this study we have investigated how different regulatory frameworks in Europe cope with identification and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs). Four regulatory groups were selected for the investigation: existing industrial chemicals, environmental pollutants in food, pharmaceuticals and plant protection products. The legislation and guidelines for each of these groups were scrutinized and compared in detail. In addition, one recent European risk assessment document each for three identified EDCs, i.e. bisphenol A, dioxins and vinclozolin, were reviewed and compared. We found that the requirements for toxicity testing and availability and scope of risk assessment guidelines varied between the four regulatory frameworks. Also, the general principles regarding the human relevance of the mode of action identified in animal tests differed in the different risk assessments. In conclusion, there is little conformity in the risk assessment processes between these groups of chemicals. Because of the complicated nature of endocrine disruption, test methods, principles and criteria for data interpretation traditionally used might not be directly applicable to EDCs and further development of a transparent and reliable risk assessment process for this type of substances is needed.     

Computational approaches for skin sensitization prediction

Abstract

Drugs, cosmetics, preservatives, fragrances, pesticides, metals, and other chemicals can cause skin sensitization. The ability to predict the skin sensitization potential and potency of substances is therefore of enormous importance to a host of different industries, to customers’ and workers’ safety. Animal experiments have been the preferred testing method for most risk assessment and regulatory purposes but considerable efforts to replace them with non-animal models and in silico models are ongoing. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the computational approaches and models that have been developed for skin sensitization prediction over the last 10 years. The scope and limitations of rule-based approaches, read-across, linear and nonlinear (quantitative) structure–activity relationship ((Q)SAR) modeling, hybrid or combined approaches, and models integrating computational methods with experimental results are discussed followed by examples of relevant models. Emphasis is placed on models that are accessible to the scientific community, and on model validation. A dedicated section reports on comparative performance assessments of various approaches and models. The review also provides a concise overview of relevant data sources on skin sensitization.     

European regulations on nutraceuticals, dietary supplements and functional foods: a framework based on safety

This article describes the legislation that is relevant in the marketing of functional foods in the European Union (EU), how this legislation was developed as well as some practical consequences for manufacturers, marketers and consumers. It also addresses some concrete examples of how the EU's safety requirements for food products have impacted a range of product categories. In the late nineties, research into functional ingredients was showing promising prospects for the use of such ingredients in foodstuffs. Due mainly to safety concerns, these new scientific developments were accompanied by an urgent call for legislation. The European Commission 2000 White Paper on Food Safety announced some 80 proposals for new and improved legislation in this field. Among others, it foresaw the establishment of a General Food Law Regulation, laying down the principles of food law and the creation of an independent Food Authority endowed with the task of giving scientific advice on issues based upon scientific risk assessment with clearly separated responsibilities for risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. Since then, more than 90% of the White Paper proposals have been implemented. However, there is not, as such, a regulatory framework for 'functional foods' or 'nutraceuticals' in EU Food Law. The rules to be applied are numerous and depend on the nature of the foodstuff. The rules of the general food law Regulation are applicable to all foods. In addition, legislation on dietetic foods, on food supplements or on novel foods may also be applicable to functional foods depending on the nature of the product and on their use. Finally, the two proposals on nutrition and health claims and on the addition of vitamins and minerals and other substances to foods, which are currently in the legislative process, will also be an important factor in the future marketing of 'nutraceuticals' in Europe. The cornerstone of EU legislation on food products, including functional foods and nutraceuticals is 'safety'. Decisions on the safety-basis of legislation are based on risk analysis, in which scientific risk assessment is performed by the European Food Safety Authority and risk management is performed by the European Commission, the Member States, and in case of legislation, together with the European Parliament. In the risk management phase, both the precautionary principle and other legitimate factors may be considered in choosing the best way of dealing with an issue. Due to the numerous pieces of legislation applying and to the different procedures to be followed, the process of having 'functional foods' ready for the market is certainly a costly and time-consuming task. However, it may also be clearly worth it in terms of market success and improved consumer health.     

Measurement of endogenous allergens in genetically modified soybeans – Short communication

The measurement of endogenous allergens is required by the European Commission (EC) as part of the compositional analysis for GM products from host plants that are common causes of food allergy, such as soybean (EC Implementing Regulation No. 503/2013). In each case, the EC Implementing Regulation indicates that analysis be conducted on identified allergens as specified in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) consensus documents on compositional considerations for new plant varieties. This communication discusses the methods available to measure endogenous allergens as well as the endogenous soybean allergens that should be analyzed. It is suggested herein that in conjunction with the 2012 OECD consensus document on soybean, any list of soybean allergens should be based on clinically relevant data among publicly available allergen databases and peer-reviewed scientific publications, and the ability to measure the identified allergen. Based on a detailed analysis of the scientific literature, the following key points are recommended: (1) the acceptance of serum-free, quantitative analytical method data as an alternative to traditional IgE reactivity qualitative or semi-quantitative data for evaluation of endogenous soybean allergen content; (2) eight of the 15 potential allergens listed in the OECD soybean consensus document (Gly m 3, Gly m 4, Gly m Bd28K, Gly m Bd30K, Gly m 5, Gly m 6, Gly m 8, and Kunitz trypsin inhibitor) have both appropriate supporting clinical data and sufficient sequence information to be evaluated in comparative endogenous soybean allergen studies; and (3) the remaining seven proteins (Gly m 1, Gly m 2, unknown 50 kDa protein, unknown 39 kDa protein, P-22-25, lipoxygenase and lectin) lack sufficient data for clear classification as confirmed allergens and/or available sequence information and should not be currently included in the measurement of endogenous soybean allergens in the compositional analysis for the EU.     

Decision trees for evaluating skin and respiratory sensitizing potential of chemicals in accordance with European regulations

Guidance for determining the sensitizing potential of chemicals is available in EC Regulation No. 1272/2008 Classification, Labeling, and Packaging of Substances; REACH guidance from the European Chemicals Agency; and the United Nations Globally Harmonized System (GHS). We created decision trees for evaluating potential skin and respiratory sensitizers. Our approach (1) brings all the regulatory information into one brief document, providing a step-by-step method to evaluate evidence that individual chemicals or mixtures have sensitizing potential; (2) provides an efficient, uniform approach that promotes consistency when evaluations are done by different reviewers; (3) provides a standard way to convey the rationale and information used to classify chemicals. We applied this approach to more than 50 chemicals distributed among 11 evaluators with varying expertise. Evaluators found the decision trees easy to use and recipients (product stewards) of the analyses found that the resulting documentation was consistent across users and met their regulatory needs. Our approach allows for transparency, process management (e.g., documentation, change management, version control), as well as consistency in chemical hazard assessment for REACH, EC Regulation No. 1272/2008 Classification, Labeling, and Packaging of Substances and the GHS.     

Human health safety evaluation of cosmetics in the EU: A legally imposed challenge to science

As stated in the European legislation, cosmetic products present on the European market must be safe for the consumer. Safety evaluation of the products is carried out by a qualified safety assessor who needs to consider potential exposure scenarios next to the physicochemical and toxicological profiles of all composing ingredients. Whereas, until recently, the tools to determine the toxicological profile of cosmetic ingredients mainly consisted of animal experiments, they have now been narrowed down substantially by the legally imposed animal testing ban on cosmetic ingredients, taken up in the Cosmetic Products Directive (76/768/EEC). This Directive, however, is not a stand-alone piece of European legislation, since as well directly as indirectly it is influenced by a complex web of related legislations. Vertical legislations deal with different categories of chemicals, including dangerous substances, biocides, plant protection products, food additives, medicinal products, and of course also cosmetics. Horizontal legislative texts, on the contrary, cover more general fields such as protection of experimental animals, consumer product safety, misleading of consumers, specific provisions for aerosols, and others. Experience has learnt that having a general overview of these related legislations is necessary to understand their impact on the cosmetic world in general terms and on cosmetic safety evaluation in particular. This goes for a variety of concerned parties, including national and European regulators/agencies, contract laboratories, raw material suppliers, cosmetic companies, research and educational centers. They all deal with a number of aspects important for the quality and toxicity of cosmetics and their ingredients.This review summarises the most relevant points of the legislative texts of different types of product categories and emphasises their impact on the safety evaluation of cosmetics.     

Assessment of in vitro human dermal absorption studies on pesticides to determine default values,opportunities for read-across and influence of dilution on absorption

Dermal absorption is an integral part of non-dietary human safety risk assessments for agrochemicals. Typically, dermal absorption data for agrochemical active substances are generated from the undiluted formulation concentrate and its spray dilutions. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) guidance, which combines highly conservative default values, very limited opportunities for read-across from existing data and other overly conservative conclusions, was the driver for this assessment. To investigate the reliability of the EFSA guidance, a homogeneous data-set of 190 GLP and OECD guideline compliant in vitro human skin studies, chosen to match the test method preferred by EU data requirements, was evaluated. These studies represented a wide range of active substances, formulation types, and concentrations. In alignment with EFSA guidance on human exposure assessment, a conservative estimate of absorption (95th percentile) was chosen to define defaults, which were also based on the EFSA worst-case assumption that all material in skin, excluding the first two tape strips, is absorbed. The analysis supports dermal absorption defaults of 6% for liquid concentrates, 2% for solid concentrates, and 30% for all spray dilutions, irrespective of the active substance concentration. Relatively high dermal absorption values for organic solvent-based formulations, compared to water-based or solid concentrates, support their use as worst-case surrogate data for read-across to other formulation types. The current review also shows that dermal absorption of sprays does not increase linearly with increasing dilution, and provides a novel, science-based option for extrapolation from existing data.     

Safety evaluation of food flavorings

Food flavorings are an essential element in foods. Flavorings are a unique class of food ingredients and excluded from the legislative definition of a food additive because they are regulated by flavor legislation and not food additive legislation. Flavoring ingredients naturally present in foods, have simple chemical structures, low toxicity, and are used in very low levels in foods and beverages resulting in very low levels of human exposure or consumption. Today, the overwhelming regulatory trend is a positive list of flavoring substances, e.g. substances not listed are prohibited. Flavoring substances are added to the list following a safety evaluation based on the conditions of intended use by qualified experts. The basic principles for assessing the safety of flavoring ingredients will be discussed with emphasis on the safety evaluation of flavoring ingredients by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the US Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Expert Panel (FEXPAN). The main components of the JECFA evaluation process include chemical structure, human intake (exposure), metabolism to innocuous or harmless substances, and toxicity concerns consistent with JECFA principles. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) evaluation is very similar to the JECFA procedure. Both the JECFA and FEMA evaluation procedures are widely recognized and the results are accepted by many countries. This implies that there is no need for developing countries to conduct their own toxicological assessment of flavoring ingredients unless it is an unique ingredient in one country, but it is helpful to survey intake or exposure assessment. The global safety program established by the International Organization of Flavor Industry (IOFI) resulting in one worldwide open positive list of flavoring substances will be reviewed.     

Utility of models of the gastrointestinal tract for assessment of the digestion and absorption of engineered nanomaterials released from food matrices

Abstract

Engineered metal/mineral, lipid and biochemical macromolecule nanomaterials (NMs) have potential applications in food. Methodologies for the assessment of NM digestion and bioavailability in the gastrointestinal tract are nascent and require refinement. A working group was tasked by the International Life Sciences Institute NanoRelease Food Additive project to review existing models of the gastrointestinal tract in health and disease, and the utility of these models for the assessment of the uptake of NMs intended for food. Gastrointestinal digestion and absorption could be addressed in a tiered approach using in silico computational models, in vitro non-cellular fluid systems and in vitro cell culture models, after which the necessity of ex vivo organ culture and in vivo animal studies can be considered. Examples of NM quantification in gastrointestinal tract fluids and tissues are emerging; however, few standardized analytical techniques are available. Coupling of these techniques to gastrointestinal models, along with further standardization, will further strengthen methodologies for risk assessment.     

Case studies putting the decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping) into practice

Case studies covering carbonaceous nanomaterials, metal oxide and metal sulphate nanomaterials, amorphous silica and organic pigments were performed to assess the Decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping). The usefulness of the DF4nanoGrouping for nanomaterial hazard assessment was confirmed. In two tiers that rely exclusively on non-animal test methods followed by a third tier, if necessary, in which data from rat short-term inhalation studies are evaluated, nanomaterials are assigned to one of four main groups (MGs). The DF4nanoGrouping proved efficient in sorting out nanomaterials that could undergo hazard assessment without further testing. These are soluble nanomaterials (MG1) whose further hazard assessment should rely on read-across to the dissolved materials, high aspect-ratio nanomaterials (MG2) which could be assessed according to their potential fibre toxicity and passive nanomaterials (MG3) that only elicit effects under pulmonary overload conditions. Thereby, the DF4nanoGrouping allows identifying active nanomaterials (MG4) that merit in-depth investigations, and it provides a solid rationale for their sub-grouping to specify the further information needs. Finally, the evaluated case study materials may be used as source nanomaterials in future read-across applications. Overall, the DF4nanoGrouping is a hazard assessment strategy that strictly uses animals as a last resort.