420万,还在增加…REACH系统毒性研究的动物死亡人数。

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Jean Knight, Thomas Hartung, Costanza Rovida
{"title":"420万,还在增加…REACH系统毒性研究的动物死亡人数。","authors":"Jean Knight,&nbsp;Thomas Hartung,&nbsp;Costanza Rovida","doi":"10.14573/altex.2303201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The EU's chemicals regulation, REACH, requires that most chemicals in the EU be evaluated for human health and ecosystem risks, with a mandate to minimize use of animal tests for these evaluations. The REACH process has been ongoing since about 2008, but a calculation of the resulting animal use is not publicly available. For this reason, we have undertaken a count of animals used for REACH. With EU legislators set to consider REACH revisions that could expand animal testing, we are releasing results for test categories counted to date: reproductive toxicity tests, developmental toxicity tests, and repeat-ed-dose toxicity tests for human health. The total animal count as of December 2022 for these categories is about 2.9 million. Additional tests involving about 1.3 million animals are currently required by a final proposal authorization or compliance check but not yet completed. The total, 4.2 million, for just these three test categories exceeds the original European Com-mission forecast of 2.6 million for all REACH tests. The difference is primarily because the European Commission estimate excluded offspring, which are most of the animals used for REACH. Other reasons for the difference are extra animals included in tests to ensure sufficient survive to meet the minimum test requirement; dose range-finding tests; extra test animal groups, e.g., for recovery analysis; and a high rejection rate of read-across studies. Given higher than forecast animal use, the upcoming debate on proposed REACH revisions is an opportunity to refocus on reducing animal numbers in keeping with the REACH mandate.</p>","PeriodicalId":51231,"journal":{"name":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","volume":"40 3","pages":"389-407"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"4.2 million and counting… The animal toll for REACH systemic toxicity studies.\",\"authors\":\"Jean Knight,&nbsp;Thomas Hartung,&nbsp;Costanza Rovida\",\"doi\":\"10.14573/altex.2303201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The EU's chemicals regulation, REACH, requires that most chemicals in the EU be evaluated for human health and ecosystem risks, with a mandate to minimize use of animal tests for these evaluations. The REACH process has been ongoing since about 2008, but a calculation of the resulting animal use is not publicly available. For this reason, we have undertaken a count of animals used for REACH. With EU legislators set to consider REACH revisions that could expand animal testing, we are releasing results for test categories counted to date: reproductive toxicity tests, developmental toxicity tests, and repeat-ed-dose toxicity tests for human health. The total animal count as of December 2022 for these categories is about 2.9 million. Additional tests involving about 1.3 million animals are currently required by a final proposal authorization or compliance check but not yet completed. The total, 4.2 million, for just these three test categories exceeds the original European Com-mission forecast of 2.6 million for all REACH tests. The difference is primarily because the European Commission estimate excluded offspring, which are most of the animals used for REACH. Other reasons for the difference are extra animals included in tests to ensure sufficient survive to meet the minimum test requirement; dose range-finding tests; extra test animal groups, e.g., for recovery analysis; and a high rejection rate of read-across studies. Given higher than forecast animal use, the upcoming debate on proposed REACH revisions is an opportunity to refocus on reducing animal numbers in keeping with the REACH mandate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation\",\"volume\":\"40 3\",\"pages\":\"389-407\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2303201\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2303201","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

欧盟的化学品法规REACH要求对欧盟的大多数化学品进行人类健康和生态系统风险评估,并要求在这些评估中尽量减少使用动物试验。REACH程序从2008年开始就一直在进行,但对动物使用的计算结果并没有公开。出于这个原因,我们对REACH中使用的动物进行了统计。随着欧盟立法者开始考虑修订REACH法规,可能扩大动物试验,我们公布了迄今为止统计的试验类别的结果:生殖毒性试验、发育毒性试验和对人类健康的重复剂量毒性试验。截至2022年12月,这些类别的动物总数约为290万只。目前,最后提案授权或合规性检查要求进行涉及约130万只动物的额外试验,但尚未完成。仅这三个测试类别就有420万份,超过了欧盟委员会最初预测的所有REACH测试260万份。这一差异主要是因为欧盟委员会的估计排除了后代,而大多数动物都是用于REACH的动物。造成差异的其他原因是在测试中加入了额外的动物,以确保有足够的存活时间来满足最低测试要求;剂量测距试验;额外的试验动物组,例如用于恢复分析;以及通读研究的高拒绝率。鉴于动物使用量高于预期,即将到来的关于REACH修订提案的辩论是一个重新关注减少动物数量以符合REACH授权的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
4.2 million and counting… The animal toll for REACH systemic toxicity studies.

The EU's chemicals regulation, REACH, requires that most chemicals in the EU be evaluated for human health and ecosystem risks, with a mandate to minimize use of animal tests for these evaluations. The REACH process has been ongoing since about 2008, but a calculation of the resulting animal use is not publicly available. For this reason, we have undertaken a count of animals used for REACH. With EU legislators set to consider REACH revisions that could expand animal testing, we are releasing results for test categories counted to date: reproductive toxicity tests, developmental toxicity tests, and repeat-ed-dose toxicity tests for human health. The total animal count as of December 2022 for these categories is about 2.9 million. Additional tests involving about 1.3 million animals are currently required by a final proposal authorization or compliance check but not yet completed. The total, 4.2 million, for just these three test categories exceeds the original European Com-mission forecast of 2.6 million for all REACH tests. The difference is primarily because the European Commission estimate excluded offspring, which are most of the animals used for REACH. Other reasons for the difference are extra animals included in tests to ensure sufficient survive to meet the minimum test requirement; dose range-finding tests; extra test animal groups, e.g., for recovery analysis; and a high rejection rate of read-across studies. Given higher than forecast animal use, the upcoming debate on proposed REACH revisions is an opportunity to refocus on reducing animal numbers in keeping with the REACH mandate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
8.90%
发文量
89
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ALTEX publishes original articles, short communications, reviews, as well as news and comments and meeting reports. Manuscripts submitted to ALTEX are evaluated by two expert reviewers. The evaluation takes into account the scientific merit of a manuscript and its contribution to animal welfare and the 3R principle.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信