Frameworks have been developed to standardize the assessment of carcinogenic potential in the pharmaceutical and agrochemical industries, building upon decades of research. Carcinogenicity is also evaluated during the safety evaluation of food substances, using a comprehensive approach unique to each substance. To better understand these approaches, a retrospective assessment was conducted on the publicly available database of substances notified to the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) as being Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). The data contained within these GRAS notifications (GRNs) were reviewed for the methods used to evaluate carcinogenic potential (genotoxicity studies, 2-year bioassays, other pre-clinical animal studies) to identify patterns that could provide an understanding of how this assessment has been conducted for different categories of food substances. While different approaches to the safety evaluation were required to adapt to the unique food substances, the data in all notifications supported the conclusion of safety. The evaluation of food substances for carcinogenic potential must consider all available data, including identifying the need for when more data must be generated to support an evaluation. Due to the complexity of substances used in food, ranging from defined chemical entities to minimally processed agricultural commodities to live microorganisms, the approach to conducting the safety evaluation of food substances must be able to adapt to the most relevant scientifically supported approach. This paper illustrates the data commonly used to support the safety of different types of food substances and proposes an approach familiar to other product sectors.

The rodent cancer bioassays are conducted for agrochemical safety assessment yet they often do not inform regulatory decision-making. As part of a collaborative effort, the Rethinking Carcinogenicity Assessment for Agrochemicals Project (ReCAAP) developed a reporting framework to guide a weight of evidence (WOE)-based carcinogenicity assessment that demonstrates how to fulfill the regulatory requirements for chronic risk estimation without the need to conduct lifetime rodent bioassays. The framework is the result of a multi-stakeholder collaboration that worked through an iterative process of writing case studies (in the form of waivers), technical peer reviews of waivers, and an incorporation of key learnings back into the framework to be tested in subsequent case study development. The example waivers used to develop the framework were written retrospectively for registered agrochemical active substances for which the necessary data and information could be obtained through risk assessment documents or data evaluation records from the US EPA. This exercise was critical to the development of a framework, but it lacked authenticity in that the stakeholders reviewing the waiver already knew the outcome of the rodent cancer bioassay(s). Syngenta expanded the evaluation of the ReCAAP reporting framework by writing waivers for three prospective case studies for new active substances where the data packages had not yet been submitted for registration. The prospective waivers followed the established framework considering ADME, potential exposure, subchronic toxicity, genotoxicity, immunosuppression, hormone perturbation, mode of action (MOA), and all relevant information available for read-across using a WOE assessment. The point of departure was estimated from the available data, excluding the cancer bioassay results, with a proposed use for the chronic dietary risk assessment. The read-across assessments compared data from reliable registered chemical analogues to strengthen the prediction of chronic toxicity and/or tumorigenic potential. The prospective case studies represent a range of scenarios, from a new molecule in a well-established chemical class with a known MOA to a molecule with a new pesticidal MOA (pMOA) and limited read-across to related molecules. This effort represents an important step in establishing criteria for a WOE-based carcinogenicity assessment without the rodent cancer bioassay(s) while ensuring a health protective chronic dietary risk assessment.

Cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB) is a surfactant derived from coconut oil that is widely used in cosmetics and personal products for several purposes, such as a surfactant, foam booster, mildness, and viscosity control. Cocamidopropyl betaine is used at concentrations up to 30% in cosmetics. The acute toxicity, skin irritation, eye irritation, skin sensitization, repeated dose toxicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and phototoxicity of cocamidopropyl betaine were evaluated. Cocamidopropyl betaine was observed to induce mild skin irritation, eye irritation and skin sensitization. The NOAEL of cocamidopropyl betaine was determined to be 250 mg/kg/day based on the results of a 92-day repeated-dose oral toxicity study in rats. The systemic exposure dose of cocamidopropyl betaine was estimated to range from 0.00120 to 0.93195 mg/kg/day when used in cosmetic products. The margin of safety of cocamidopropyl betaine was calculated to be greater than 100 when used at a maximum concentration of 6% in leave-on products and 30% in rinse-off products, suggesting that its use in cosmetic products is safe under current usage conditions.

The prevalence of hormone-related health issues caused by exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is a significant, and increasing, societal challenge. Declining fertility rates together with rising incidence rates of reproductive disorders and other endocrine-related diseases underscores the urgency in taking more action. Addressing the growing threat of EDCs in our environment demands robust and reliable test methods to assess a broad variety of endpoints relevant for endocrine disruption. EDCs also require effective regulatory frameworks, especially as the current move towards greater reliance on non-animal methods in chemical testing puts to test the current paradigm for EDC identification, which requires that an adverse effect is observed in an intact organism. Although great advances have been made in the field of predictive toxicology, disruption to the endocrine system and subsequent adverse health effects may prove particularly difficult to predict without traditional animal models. The MERLON project seeks to expedite progress by integrating multispecies molecular research, new approach methodologies (NAMs), human clinical epidemiology, and systems biology to furnish mechanistic insights and explore ways forward for NAM-based identification of EDCs. The focus is on sexual development and function, from foetal sex differentiation of the reproductive system through mini-puberty and puberty to sexual maturity. The project aims are geared towards closing existing knowledge gaps in understanding the effects of EDCs on human health to ultimately support effective regulation of EDCs in the European Union and beyond.

Industry representatives on the ICH S1B(R1) Expert Working Group (EWG) worked closely with colleagues from the Drug Regulatory Authorities to develop an addendum to the ICH S1B guideline on carcinogenicity studies that allows for a weight-of-evidence (WoE) carcinogenicity assessment in some cases, rather than conducting a 2-year rat carcinogenicity study. A subgroup of the EWG composed of regulators have published in this issue a detailed analysis of the Prospective Evaluation Study (PES) conducted under the auspices of the ICH S1B(R1) EWG. Based on the experience gained through the Prospective Evaluation Study (PES) process, industry members of the EWG have prepared the following commentary to aid sponsors in assessing the standard WoE factors, considering how novel investigative approaches may be used to support a WoE assessment, and preparing appropriate documentation of the WoE assessment for presentation to regulatory authorities. The commentary also reviews some of the implementation challenges sponsors must consider in developing a carcinogenicity assessment strategy. Finally, case examples drawn from previously marketed products are provided as a supplement to this commentary to provide additional examples of how WoE criteria may be applied. The information and opinions expressed in this commentary are aimed at increasing the quality of WoE assessments to ensure the successful implementation of this approach.

As a complex system governing and interconnecting numerous functions within the human body, the immune system is unsurprisingly susceptible to the impact of toxic chemicals. Toxicants can influence the immune system through a multitude of mechanisms, resulting in immunosuppression, hypersensitivity, increased risk of autoimmune diseases and cancer development. At present, the regulatory assessment of the immunotoxicity of chemicals relies heavily on rodent models and a limited number of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines, which only capture a fraction of potential toxic properties. Due to this limitation, various authorities, including the World Health Organization and the European Food Safety Authority have highlighted the need for the development of novel approaches without the use of animals for immunotoxicity testing of chemicals. In this paper, we present a concise overview of ongoing efforts dedicated to developing and standardizing methodologies for a comprehensive characterization of the immunotoxic effects of chemicals, which are performed under the EU-funded Partnership for the Assessment of Risk from Chemicals (PARC).

Novel medical devices must conform to medical device regulation (MDR) for European market entry. Likewise, chemicals must comply with the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACh) regulation. Both pose regulatory challenges for manufacturers, but concordantly provide an approach for transferring data from an already registered device or compound to the one undergoing accreditation. This is called equivalence for medical devices and read-across for chemicals. Although read-across is not explicitly prohibited in the process of medical device accreditation, it is usually not performed due to a lack of guidance and acceptance criteria from the authorities. Nonetheless, a scientifically justified read-across of material-based endpoints, as well as toxicological assessment of chemical aspects, such as extractables and leachables, can prevent failure of MDR device equivalence if data is lacking. Further, read-across, if applied correctly can facilitate the standard MDR conformity assessment. The need for read-across within medical device registration should let authorities to reconsider device accreditation and the formulation of respective guidance documents. Acceptance criteria like in the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) read-across assessment framework (RAAF) are needed. This can reduce the impact of the MDR and help with keeping high European innovation device rate, beneficial for medical device patients.

The rapid progress of AI impacts various areas of life, including toxicology, and promises a major role for AI in future risk assessments. Toxicology has shifted from a purely empirical science focused on observing chemical exposure outcomes to a data-rich field ripe for AI integration. AI methods are well-suited to handling and integrating large, diverse data volumes - a key challenge in modern toxicology. Additionally, AI enables Predictive Toxicology, as demonstrated by the automated read-across tool RASAR that achieved 87% balanced accuracy across nine OECD tests and 190,000 chemicals, outperforming animal test reproducibility. AI\'s ability to handle big data and provide probabilistic outputs facilitates probabilistic risk assessment. Rather than just replicating human skills at larger scales, AI should be viewed as a transformative technology. Despite potential challenges, like model black-boxing and dataset biases, explainable AI (xAI) is emerging to address these issues.

Currently there are three test guidelines (TG) for acute oral toxicity studies of substances or mixtures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). TG 423 and TG 425 use lethality as an endpoint, while TG 420 replaces death with \'evident toxicity\', defined as clear signs that exposure to a higher dose would result in death. However, the perceived subjectivity of \'evident toxicity\' may be preventing wider use of TG 420. To address this, the UK National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) and the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) collaborated to provide recommendations on the recognition of \'evident toxicity\'. Historical data from acute oral toxicity studies were analysed for clinical signs at the lower dose that could have predicted death at the higher dose. Several signs including ataxia, laboured respiration, and eyes partially closed, alone or in combination, are highly predictive. Others such as lethargy, decreased respiration, and loose faeces have lower but still appreciable positive predictive value (PPV). The data has been used to develop recommendations to promote use of TG 420 and thus reduce the suffering and numbers of animals used in acute oral toxicity studies.

Embryofetal toxicity studies are conducted to support inclusion of women of childbearing potential in clinical trials and to support labeling for the marketed pharmaceutical product. For biopharmaceuticals, which frequently lack activity in the rodent or rabbit, the nonhuman primate is the standard model to evaluate embryofetal toxicity. These studies have become increasingly challenging to conduct due to the small number of facilities capable of performing them and a shortage of sexually mature monkeys. The low number of animals per group and the high rate of spontaneous abortion in cynomolgus monkeys further complicate interpretation of the data. Recent FDA guidance has proposed a weight of evidence (WoE) approach to support product labeling for reproductive toxicity of products intended to be used for the treatment of cancer (Oncology Pharmaceuticals: Reproductive Toxicity Testing and Labeling Recommendations), an approach that has also supported the approval of biotherapeutics for non-cancer indications. Considerations to determine the appropriateness and content of a WoE approach to support product labeling for embryofetal risk include known class effects in humans; findings from genetically modified animals with or without drug administration; information from surrogate compounds; literature-based assessments about the developmental role of the pharmaceutical target; and the anticipated exposure during embryofetal development. This paper summarizes the content of a session presented at the 42nd annual meeting at the American College of Toxicology, which explored the conditions under which alternative approaches may be appropriate to support product labeling for reproductive risk, and how sponsors can best justify the use of this approach.