A critical assessment of the European Commission's proposals for the risk assessment and registration of chemical substances in the European Union

In May, 2003, the European Commission published detailed proposals relating to its 2001 White Paper--Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. The White Paper described a new registration system called the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system, for both new and existing chemicals. Subsequently, these detailed proposals were available for an eight-week consultation period for stakeholders to voice their views and concerns. In this paper, we describe our reactions to the Commissions more-detailed proposals. These include the creation of a European Chemicals Agency to implement the REACH system in conjunction with Competent Authorities (CAs) in Member States and the Commission itself. Unfortunately, many of our concerns and suggestions, previously voiced and shared with several other key stakeholders, remain unanswered, but are as relevant as when the White Paper was published. In particular, we are concerned about the lack of a clear and coherent strategy. There is no guidance for registrants on intelligent testing to maximise the use of non-animal approaches to safety testing, based on a combination of factors for estimating exposure levels, rather than mainly on production volumes. We are also concerned about the absence of a clear programme for the development, improvement and validation of new alternative methods, in conjunction with the Commissions own unit, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, as well as other organisations with relevant expertise and experience, including FRAME. Finally, we explain why such measures should be introduced, together with clearer guidelines for the respective roles of the Agency, the CAs and the Commission in implementing and harmonising the REACH system at the European Union and Member State levels. A series of recommendations are made, to improve the situation and to improve the risk assessment process.     

A survey of stakeholder organisations on the proposed new European chemical policy

In February 2001, the European Commission published a White Paper proposing that a single new system of chemical regulation should be applied throughout the Member States of the European Union. The proposed Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) system was to include both new and existing chemicals, with the aim of ensuring that sufficient pertinent data were made available to enable human health and the environment to be protected. The policy was founded on the principle of sustainable industrial development, and ambitiously attempted to incorporate the needs and views of key stakeholder organisations, such as industry, trade associations, consumer groups, environmentalists, animal welfarists and Member State governments. During the period between the publication of the White Paper and the on-line publication of consultation documents, as part of a public consultation exercise, in May 2003, many of these key stakeholder organisations produced material in support of or critical of the White Paper, either in part or as a whole. In this paper, we have attempted to review this extensive material and to present it in the context of the current chemical regulatory system that the REACH system will replace. Emphasis is placed on the impact of the new policy on the number of animals used in the testing regimes within the REACH system and the inclusion of alternative methods into the legislation. Although supportive of the overriding aims of the new policy, FRAME believes that the fundamental concept of a risk-free environment is flawed, and that the new REACH system will involve the unjustifiable use of millions of laboratory animals. The new policy does include alternative methods, particularly for base set substances. Nevertheless, alternative testing methods that are already available have been excluded and replaced with outdated in vivo versions. There is also insufficient detail with regard to the further development and validation of alternative methods, particularly for substances of high concern, such as endocrine disrupters or reproductive toxins, for which no alternative testing methods currently exist.     

A survey of stakeholder organisations on the proposed new European chemicals policy

In February 2001, the European Commission published a White Paper proposing that a single new system of chemical regulation should be applied throughout the Member States of the European Union. The proposed Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) system was to include both new and existing chemicals, with the aim of ensuring that sufficient pertinent data were made available to enable human health and the environment to be protected. The policy was founded on the principle of sustainable industrial development, and ambitiously attempted to incorporate the needs and views of key stakeholder organisations, such as industry, trade associations, consumer groups, environmentalists, animal welfarists and Member State governments. During the period between the publication of the White Paper and the on-line publication of consultation documents, as part of a public consultation exercise, in May 2003, many of these key stakeholder organisations produced material in support of or critical of the White Paper, either in part or as a whole. In this paper, we have attempted to review this extensive material and to present it in the context of the current chemical regulatory system that the REACH system will replace. Emphasis is placed on the impact of the new policy on the number of animals used in the testing regimes within the REACH system and the inclusion of alternative methods into the legislation. Although supportive of the overriding aims of the new policy, FRAME believes that the fundamental concept of a risk-free environment is flawed, and that the new REACH system will involve the unjustifiable use of millions of laboratory animals. The new policy does include alternative methods, particularly for base-set substances. Nevertheless, alternative testing methods that are already available have been excluded and replaced with outdated in vivo versions. There is also insufficient detail with regard to the further development and validation of alternative methods, particularly for substances of high concern, such as endocrine disrupters or reproductive toxins, for which no alternative testing methods currently exist.     

Introduction to the EU REACH legislation

FRAME initiatives on the European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals, first proposed as a White Paper in 2001, are summarised. These initiatives considered the scientific and animal welfare issues raised by the REACH proposals, and resulted in a number of suggestions for improvement, many of which seem to have been adopted during the current progress of the legislation through the European Council and European Parliament.     

ecopa: a powerful concept in the way forward for alternative methods

ecopa, the European Consensus-Platform on Alternatives, is an international not-for-profit organisation, based in Belgium and complying with Belgium Law. It is the only quadripartite organisation that promotes the Three Rs at the European level. Ecopa brings together national consensus platforms on alternative methods. Consensus means that all parties concerned are represented, including animal welfare, industry, academia and government. Ecopa currently includes the National Platforms of 14 EU Member State (or future Member State; eight full members, namely, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the UK, and six associate members, being the Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Poland and Sweden). Ecopa also has three working groups, concerned with: a) the 6th Framework Programme of the EC for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities; b) the EC White Paper Strategy for a Future EU Chemicals Policy; and c) the formation of educational programmes on alternative methods within the EU. Ecopa is thus uniquely placed and has huge expertise to offer to the debate around political topics, including the White Paper, the 6th Framework Programme, and the 7th Amendment of the EU Cosmetics Directive. Ecopa should be considered a key stakeholder by the European Commission and Parliament, and it is essential that the views of ecopa are fully incorporated into future legislation. Recently, the ecopa working groups made a strong common statement on the Chemicals Policy White Paper and made a number of recommendations to the Commission based on scientific, practical and realistic grounds. These are to be found on the ecopa Web site (http://www.ecopa.tsx.org/).     

An overall strategy for the testing of chemicals for human hazard and risk assessment under the EU REACH system

In its White Paper, Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy, published in 2001, the European Commission (EC) proposed the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals) system to deal with both existing and new chemical substances. This system is based on a top-down approach to toxicity testing, in which the degree of toxicity information required is dictated primarily by production volume (tonnage). If testing is to be based on traditional methods, very large numbers of laboratory animals could be needed in response to the REACH system, causing ethical, scientific and logistical problems that would be incompatible with the time-schedule envisaged for testing. The EC has emphasised the need to minimise animal use, but has failed to produce a comprehensive strategy for doing so. The present document provides an overall scheme for predictive toxicity testing, whereby the non-animal methods identified and discussed in a recent and comprehensive ECVAM document, could be used in a tiered approach to provide a rapid and scientifically justified basis for the risk assessment of chemicals for their toxic effects in humans. The scheme starts with a preliminary risk assessment process (involving available information on hazard and exposure), followed by testing, based on physicochemical properties and (Q)SAR approaches. (Q)SAR analyses are used in conjunction with expert system and biokinetic modelling, and information on metabolism and identification of the principal metabolites in humans. The resulting information is then combined with production levels and patterns of use to assess potential human exposure. The nature and extent of any further testing should be based strictly on the need to fill essential information gaps in order to generate adequate risk assessments, and should rely on non-animal methods, as far as possible. The scheme also includes a feedback loop, so that new information is used to improve the predictivity of computational expert systems. Several recommendations are made, the most important of which is that the European Union (EU) should actively promote the improvement and validation of (Q)SAR models and expert systems, and computer-based methods for biokinetic modelling, since these offer the most realistic and most economical solution to the need to test large numbers of chemicals.     

An overall strategy for the testing of chemicals for human hazard and risk assessment under the EU REACH system

In its White Paper, "Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy," published in 2001, the European Commission (EC) proposed the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals) system to deal with both existing and new chemical substances. This system is based on a top-down approach to toxicity testing, in which the degree of toxicity information required is dictated primarily by production volume (tonnage). If testing is to be based on traditional methods, very large numbers of laboratory animals could be needed in response to the REACH system, causing ethical, scientific and logistical problems that would be incompatible with the time-schedule envisaged for testing. The EC has emphasised the need to minimise animal use, but has failed to produce a comprehensive strategy for doing so. The present document provides an overall scheme for predictive toxicity testing, whereby the non-animal methods identified and discussed in a recent and comprehensive ECVAM document, could be used in a tiered approach to provide a rapid and scientifically justified basis for the risk assessment of chemicals for their toxic effects in humans. The scheme starts with a preliminary risk assessment process (involving available information on hazard and exposure), followed by testing, based on physicochemical properties and (Q)SAR approaches. (Q)SAR analyses are used in conjunction with expert system and biokinetic modelling, and information on metabolism and identification of the principal metabolites in humans. The resulting information is then combined with production levels and patterns of use to assess potential human exposure. The nature and extent of any further testing should be based strictly on the need to fill essential information gaps in order to generate adequate risk assessments, and should rely on non-animal methods, as far as possible. The scheme also includes a feedback loop, so that new information is used to improve the predictivity of computational expert systems. Several recommendations are made, the most important of which is that the European Union (EU) should actively promote the improvement and validation of (Q)SAR models and expert systems, and computer-based methods for biokinetic modelling, since these offer the most realistic and most economical solution to the need to test large numbers of chemicals.     

FRAME and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: common recommendations for assessing risks posed by chemicals under the EU REACH system

This document discusses recommendations made by FRAME and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) with regard to the current European Commission proposals on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) system for assessing the risks of chemicals to humans, wildlife and the environment. Of several common aims and recommendations, the two most important are: a) the greater use of non-animal testing methods, especially computational prediction methods (for example, [quantitative] structure-activity relationships, expert systems and biokinetic modelling) for prioritising chemicals for hazard assessment; and b) the greater use of intelligent exposure-based targeted risk assessment, with less emphasis being placed on tonnage-triggers. FRAME has produced a decision-tree testing scheme to illustrate the way in which these approaches could be used, together with in vitro test methods. This scheme has been slightly modified to take account of proposals subsequently made by the RCEP. In addition, FRAME points out that new and improved computational methods are needed through more coordinated research, and that these and existing methods need to be validated. The similarities between the independent publications of FRAME and the RCEP add weight to the recommendations that each have made concerning the implementation of the REACH system.     

FRAME and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: common recommendations for assessing risks posed by chemicals under the EU REACH system

This document discusses recommendations made by FRAME and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) with regard to the current European Commission proposals on the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) system for assessing the risks of chemicals to humans, wildlife and the environment. Of several common aims and recommendations, the two most important are: a) the greater use of non-animal testing methods, especially computational prediction methods (for example, [quantitative] structure-activity relationships, expert systems and biokinetic modelling) for prioritising chemicals for hazard assessment; and b) the greater use of intelligent exposure-based targeted risk assessment, with less emphasis being placed on tonnage-triggers. FRAME has produced a decision-tree testing scheme to illustrate the way in which these approaches could be used, together with in vitro test methods. This scheme has been slightly modified to take account of proposals subsequently made by the RCEP. In addition, FRAME points out that new and improved computational methods are needed through more coordinated research, and that these and existing methods need to be validated. The similarities between the independent publications of FRAME and the RCEP add weight to the recommendations that each have made concerning the implementation of the REACH system.     

The EC White Paper on a Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy

The European Commission (EC) White Paper on a Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy calls for the collection of adequate information about chemicals, in order to ensure their appropriate risk management. The White Paper proposes a stepwise and flexible approach to all chemicals produced in amounts above 1 tonne/year/manufacturer, including testing, if information cannot be provided by other means. The required information should be collected by the end of 2012. The EC services are currently preparing the drafts for the future chemicals legislation.     

A critical evaluation of the 2011 ECHA reports on compliance with the REACH and CLP regulations and on the use of alternatives to testing on animals for compliance with the REACH regulation

On 30 June 2011, the European Chemicals Agency published two reports, one on the functioning of the REACH system, the other on the use of alternatives to animal testing in compliance with that system. The data presented are based on information gained during the first registration period under the REACH system, which included high production volume chemicals and substances of very high concern, which have the most extensive information requirements. A total of 25,460 registration dossiers were received, covering 3,400 existing, so-called 'phase-in', substances, and 900 new, so-called 'non-phase-in', substances. Data sharing and the joint submission of data are reported to have worked successfully. In the registration dossiers for these substances, results from new animal tests were included for less than 1% of all the endpoints; testing proposals (required for 'higher-tier' information requirements) were submitted for 711 in vivo tests involving vertebrate animals. The registrants mainly used old, existing experimental data, or options for the adaptation (waiving) of information requirements, before collecting new information. For predicting substance toxicity, 'read-across' was the second most-used approach, followed by 'weight-of-evidence'. In vitro toxicity tests played a minor role, and were only used when the respective test methods had gained the status of regulatory acceptance. All in all, a successful start to the REACH programme was reported, particularly since, in contrast to most predictions, it did not contribute to a significant increase in toxicity testing in animals.     

A scientific and animal welfare assessment of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines for the safety testing of chemicals under the European Union REACH system

We have assessed each of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines (TGs) that were included in an annex to the Internet consultation issued by the European Commission relating to the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) legislation for the testing of new and existing chemical substances. Each guideline has been analysed with respect to its design and its scientific and animal welfare implications, the extent to which it makes use of modern techniques, and its suitability to be used in the REACH system for the testing of large numbers of chemicals. The scientific basis of the test and its justification are considered, as well as the numbers of animals required, and the potential adverse effects on them. The prospects and possibilities for applying the Three Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) to each of the TGs are also discussed. We have proposed an overall testing strategy for how these TGs and other methods could best be deployed for chemicals testing, should it be necessary to fill data gaps. Certain TGs have been omitted from the strategy, when we have considered them to be unnecessary for chemicals testing. A series of recommendations has been made for improving the TGs with regard to both their scientific content and ways in which they could be better designed in relation to optimising the use of the animals concerned, and minimising adverse welfare consequences to them. Our investigations show that there is an urgent need to update the TGs to reflect modern techniques and methods, and to use current approaches for applying refinement strategies to improve the scientific and animal welfare aspects of the procedures used. Improvements can and should be made in all aspects of toxicity testing, from sample preparation, and animal housing, care and feeding, to dose formulation, test material administration, and the histopathological and clinical analysis of tissue samples. Opportunities for streamlining individual assays are very limited, but testing could be made more efficient by: a) only undertaking studies that provide relevant data; b) making greater use of screens and preliminary testing; c) applying some tests simultaneously to the same animals; d) using one sex; and e) eliminating redundant tests. In conclusion, it is clear that, as they stand, the OECD Health Effects TGs are unsuitable for use in the European Union REACH system, for which potentially very large numbers of laboratory animals will be needed for the testing of a very large number of chemicals.     

A scientific and animal welfare assessment of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines for the safety testing of chemicals under the European Union REACH system

We have assessed each of the OECD Health Effects Test Guidelines (TGs) that were included in an annex to the Internet consultation issued by the European Commission relating to the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) legislation for the testing of new and existing chemical substances. Each guideline has been analysed with respect to its design and its scientific and animal welfare implications, the extent to which it makes use of modern techniques, and its suitability to be used in the REACH system for the testing of large numbers of chemicals. The scientific basis of the test and its justification are considered, as well as the numbers of animals required, and the potential adverse effects on them. The prospects and possibilities for applying the Three Rs (reduction, refinement and replacement) to each of the TGs are also discussed. We have proposed an overall testing strategy for how these TGs and other methods could best be deployed for chemicals testing, should it be necessary to fill data gaps. Certain TGs have been omitted from the strategy, when we have considered them to be unnecessary for chemicals testing. A series of recommendations has been made for improving the TGs with regard to both their scientific content and ways in which they could be better designed in relation to optimising the use of the animals concerned, and minimising adverse welfare consequences to them. Our investigations show that there is an urgent need to update the TGs to reflect modern techniques and methods, and to use current approaches for applying refinement strategies to improve the scientific and animal welfare aspects of the procedures used. Improvements can and should be made in all aspects of toxicity testing, from sample preparation, and animal housing, care and feeding, to dose formulation, test material administration, and the histopathological and clinical analysis of tissue samples. Opportunities for streamlining individual assays are very limited, but testing could be made more efficient by: a) only undertaking studies that provide relevant data; b) making greater use of screens and preliminary testing; c) applying some tests simultaneously to the same animals; d) using one sex; and e) eliminating redundant tests. In conclusion, it is clear that, as they stand, the OECD Health Effects TGs are unsuitable for use in the European Union REACH system, for which potentially very large numbers of laboratory animals will be needed for the testing of a very large number of chemicals.     

A review of the status of alternative approaches to animal testing and the development of integrated testing strategies for assessing the toxicity of chemicals under REACH--a summary of a DEFRA-funded project conducted by Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME

Liverpool John Moores University and FRAME were recently awarded a DEFRA tender to conduct a review of the status of alternative approaches to animal testing, and to recommend further research with regard to the forthcoming European Union REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system for the safety testing and risk assessment of chemicals. The outcome of the project is summarised, including the prospects for in vitro and in silico testing, areas where reduction and refinement could be applied, and how decision-tree integrated testing strategies could be used to reduce the number of animals needed to fulfil the testing requirements of the REACH system. This paper is a prelude to a series of individual papers on detailed suggestions for applying non-animal methods to each of the major toxicity endpoints in REACH.     

European coding system for tissues and cells: a challenge unmet?

The Comité Européen de Normalisation (European Committee for Standardization, CEN) Workshop on Coding of Information and Traceability of Human Tissues and Cells was established by the Expert Working Group of the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Affairs of the European Commission (DG SANCO) to identify requirements concerning the coding of information and the traceability of human tissues and cells, and propose guidelines and recommendations to permit the implementation of the European Coding system required by the European Tissues and Cells Directive 2004/23/EC (ED). The Workshop included over 70 voluntary participants from tissue, blood and eye banks, national ministries for healthcare, transplant organisations, universities and coding organisations; mainly from Europe with a small number of representatives from professionals in Canada, Australia, USA and Japan. The Workshop commenced in April 2007 and held its final meeting in February 2008. The draft Workshop Agreement went through a public comment phase from 15 December 2007 until 15 January 2008 and the endorsement period ran from 9 April 2008 until 2 May 2008. The endorsed CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA) set out the issues regarding a common coding system, qualitatively assessed what the industry felt was required of a coding system, reviewed coding systems that were put forward as potential European coding systems and established a basic specification for a proposed European coding system for human tissues and cells, based on ISBT 128, and which is compatible with existing systems of donation identification, traceability and nomenclatures, indicating how implementation of that system could be approached. The CWA, and the associated Workshop proposals with recommendations, were finally submitted to the European Commission and to the Committee of Member States that assists its management process under article 29 of the Directive 2004/23/EC on May 25 2008. In 2009 the European Commission initiated an impact assessment on the Workshop proposals and recommendations. In the absence of an agreed pan-European direction various initiatives have continued work using, adopting or adapting their preferred, or existing, methods.     

Animal carcinogenicity studies: implications for the REACH system

The 2001 European Commission proposal for the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) aims to improve public and environmental health by assessing the toxicity of, and restricting exposure to, potentially toxic chemicals. The greatest benefits are expected to accrue from decreased cancer incidences. Hence the accurate identification of chemical carcinogens must be a top priority for the REACH system. Due to a paucity of human clinical data, the identification of potential human carcinogens has conventionally relied on animal tests. However, our survey of the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPAs) toxic chemicals database revealed that, for a majority of the chemicals of greatest public health concern (93/160, i.e. 58.1%), the EPA found animal carcinogenicity data to be inadequate to support classifications of probable human carcinogen or non-carcinogen. A wide variety of species were used, with rodents predominating; a wide variety of routes of administration were used; and a particularly wide variety of organ systems were affected. These factors raise serious biological obstacles that render accurate extrapolation to humans profoundly difficult. Furthermore, significantly different International Agency for Research on Cancer assessments of identical chemicals, indicate that the true human predictivity of animal carcinogenicity data is even poorer than is indicated by the EPA figures alone. Consequently, we propose the replacement of animal carcinogenicity bioassays with a tiered combination of non-animal assays, which can be expected to yield a weight-of-evidence characterisation of carcinogenic risk with superior human predictivity. Additional advantages include substantial savings of financial, human and animal resources, and potentially greater insights into mechanisms of carcinogenicity.     

The use of LCA to develop eco-label criteria for hard floor coverings on behalf of the european flower

Thorough environmental observation and a series of life cycle consideration have been performed to underpin the development of the environmental criteria of a new EU Eco-label product group following the voluntary and selective European Environmental Award Scheme based on Regulation EC 1980/ 2000. Since April 2002, the European Eco-label is available for the Hard Floor Coverings product group, subsequently also called ‘HFC’. The Eco-label translates environmental awareness on products for indoor and outdoor covering materials such as ceramic and clay tiles, concrete paving units, terrazzo, agglomerated and natural stones into a new market-based environmental policy tool. As a matter of fact, the HFC ecological criteria development has been positively concluded based on a the study of the Italian National Environment Protection Agency (ANPA, Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente) with the technical support of Life Cycle Engineering (Turin, Italy), that had been entrusted with this task by the European Commission, DG Environment. The stakeholders involved in the ‘Ad Hoc Working Group’ activities included European Eco-label Competent Bodies, some of the most important manufacturers, consumers and environmental associations at a European level. In December 2001, after eighteen months of concerted work with all the interested parties in the European Union Eco-label Board (EUEB), the final vote of criteria by Member States enabled the publication of the EU-wide valid criteria and the elaboration of an application pack (user manual) in late March 2002.