Literature DB >> 27254273

Bridging the gap between regulatory acceptance and industry use of non-animal methods.

Amy J Clippinger1, Erin Hill2, Rodger Curren2, Patricia Bishop1.   

Abstract

Collaboration between industry and regulators resulted in the development of a decision tree approach using in vitro or ex vivo assays to replace animal tests when determining the eye irritation potential of antimicrobial cleaning products (AMCPs) under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs' hazard classification and labeling system. A policy document issued by the EPA in 2013 and updated in 2015 describes the alternate testing framework that industry could apply to new registrations of AMCPs and, on a case-by-case basis, to conventional pesticide products. Despite the collaborative effort, the availability of relevant non-animal methods, and the EPA's change in policy, only a limited number of AMCPs have been registered using the framework. Companies continue to conduct animal tests when registering AMCPs due to various challenges surrounding adoption of the new testing framework; however, recent discussions between industry, regulators, and other interested parties have identified ways these challenges may be overcome. In this article we explore how use of the alternate framework could be expanded through efforts such as increasing international harmonization, more proactively publicizing the framework, and enhancing the training of regulatory reviewers. Not only can these strategies help to increase use of the EPA alternate eye irritation framework, they can also be applied to facilitate the uptake of other alternative approaches to animal testing in the future.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EPA; antimicrobial cleaning products; eye hazard classification; non-animal testing strategy; pesticides

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27254273     DOI: 10.14573/altex.1601311

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ALTEX        ISSN: 1868-596X            Impact factor:   6.043


  4 in total

Review 1.  Status of acute systemic toxicity testing requirements and data uses by U.S. regulatory agencies.

Authors:  Judy Strickland; Amy J Clippinger; Jeffrey Brown; David Allen; Abigail Jacobs; Joanna Matheson; Anna Lowit; Emily N Reinke; Mark S Johnson; Michael J Quinn; David Mattie; Suzanne C Fitzpatrick; Surender Ahir; Nicole Kleinstreuer; Warren Casey
Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2018-02-03       Impact factor: 3.271

2.  Puncture versus capture: which stresses animals the most?

Authors:  Xavier Bonnet; Gopal Billy; Margareta Lakušić
Journal:  J Comp Physiol B       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 2.200

3.  Development of a 96-Well Electrophilic Allergen Screening Assay for Skin Sensitization Using a Measurement Science Approach.

Authors:  Elijah J Petersen; Richard Uhl; Blaza Toman; John T Elliott; Judy Strickland; James Truax; John Gordon
Journal:  Toxics       Date:  2022-05-17

4.  Editorial overview of the special issue on application of tissue chips in toxicology.

Authors:  Ivan Rusyn; Adrian Roth
Journal:  Toxicology       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 4.221

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.