Experiences of the REACH testing proposals system to reduce animal testing.

ALTEX Pub Date : 2014-01-01 DOI:10.14573/altex.1311151
Katy Taylor, Wolfgang Stengel, Carlotta Casalegno, David Andrew
{"title":"Experiences of the REACH testing proposals system to reduce animal testing.","authors":"Katy Taylor,&nbsp;Wolfgang Stengel,&nbsp;Carlotta Casalegno,&nbsp;David Andrew","doi":"10.14573/altex.1311151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In order to reduce animal testing, companies registering chemical substances under the EU REACH legislation must propose rather than conduct certain tests on animals. Third parties can submit 'scientifically valid information' relevant to these proposals to the Agency responsible, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), who are obliged to take the information into account. The European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE) provided comments on nearly half of the 817 proposals for vertebrate tests on 480 substances published for comment for the first REACH deadline (between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2012). The paper summarises the response by registrants and the Agency to third party comments and highlights issues with the use of read across, in vitro tests, QSAR and weight of evidence approaches. Use of existing data and evidence that testing is legally or scientifically unjustified remain the most successful comments for third parties to submit. There is a worrying conservatism within the Agency regarding the acceptance of alternative approaches and examples of where registrants have also failed to maximise opportunities to avoid testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":520550,"journal":{"name":"ALTEX","volume":" ","pages":"107-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ALTEX","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.1311151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

In order to reduce animal testing, companies registering chemical substances under the EU REACH legislation must propose rather than conduct certain tests on animals. Third parties can submit 'scientifically valid information' relevant to these proposals to the Agency responsible, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), who are obliged to take the information into account. The European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE) provided comments on nearly half of the 817 proposals for vertebrate tests on 480 substances published for comment for the first REACH deadline (between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2012). The paper summarises the response by registrants and the Agency to third party comments and highlights issues with the use of read across, in vitro tests, QSAR and weight of evidence approaches. Use of existing data and evidence that testing is legally or scientifically unjustified remain the most successful comments for third parties to submit. There is a worrying conservatism within the Agency regarding the acceptance of alternative approaches and examples of where registrants have also failed to maximise opportunities to avoid testing.

减少动物试验的REACH测试提案系统的经验。
为了减少动物试验,根据欧盟REACH法规注册化学物质的公司必须提出建议,而不是在动物身上进行某些试验。第三方可以向负责的机构欧洲化学品管理局(ECHA)提交与这些提案相关的“科学有效信息”,ECHA有义务考虑这些信息。欧洲终止动物实验联盟(ECEAE)对第一个REACH截止日期(2009年8月1日至2012年7月31日)公布的480种物质的817项脊椎动物试验提案中的近一半提供了评论。该文件总结了注册人和fda对第三方意见的回应,并强调了使用跨读、体外测试、QSAR和证据权重方法的问题。使用现有的数据和证据证明测试在法律上或科学上是不合理的,仍然是第三方提交的最成功的评论。在接受替代方法方面,原子能机构内部存在一种令人担忧的保守态度,以及注册人未能最大限度地利用避免检测的机会的例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信