| Literature DB >> 20014893 |
Douglas McGregor1, Alan Boobis, Marco Binaglia, Phil Botham, Laurence Hoffstadt, Sue Hubbard, Thomas Petry, Anthony Riley, Dirk Schwartz, Christa Hennes.
Abstract
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) has developed criteria for a globally harmonised system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS). With regard to carcinogenicity, GHS distinguishes between Category 1 ('known or presumed human carcinogens') and Category 2 ('suspected human carcinogens'). Category 1 carcinogens are divided into Category 1A ('known to have carcinogenic potential for humans'), based largely on human evidence, and 1B ('presumed to have carcinogenic potential for humans'), based largely on experimental animal data. Concerns have been raised that the criteria for applying these carcinogenicity classifications are not sufficiently well defined and potentially allow different conclusions to be drawn. The current document describes an attempt to reduce the potential for diverse conclusions resulting from the GHS classification system through the application of a series of questions during the evaluation of data from experiments with rodents; epidemiological data, which could lead to Category 1A, have not been considered. Answers to each question can lead either to a classification decision or to the next question, but this process should only be implemented in an environment of informed scientific opinion. The scheme is illustrated with five case studies. These questions are: (1) Has a relevant form of the substance been tested? (2) Is the study design relevant to human exposure? (3) Is there a substance-related response? (4) Is the target tissue exposure relevant to humans? (5) Can a mode of action be established? (6) Is the mode of action relevant to humans? (7) What is the potency?Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20014893 DOI: 10.3109/10408440903384717
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Rev Toxicol ISSN: 1040-8444 Impact factor: 5.635