Expert opinions on the acceptance of alternative methods in food safety evaluations

Formulating recommendations to increase acceptance of non-animal methods for kinetics

Ans Punt*, Hans Bouwmeester, Marie Jeanne W.A. Schiffelers, Ad A.C.M. Peijnenburg

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Inclusion of alternative methods that replace, reduce, or refine (3R) animal testing within regulatory safety evaluations of chemicals generally faces many hurdles. The goal of the current work is to i) collect responses from key stakeholders involved in food safety evaluations on what they consider the most relevant factors that influence the acceptance and use of 3R methods and to ii) use these responses to formulate activities needed to increase the acceptance and use of 3R methods, particularly for kinetics. The stakeholders were contacted by e-mail for their opinions, asking the respondents to write down three barriers and/or drivers and scoring these by distributing 5 points over the three factors. The main barriers that obtained the highest aggregated scores were i) uncertain predictability 3R methods/lack of validation, ii) insufficient guidance regulators/industry and iii) insufficient harmonization of legislation. The major driver identified was the possibility of 3R methods to provide more mechanistic information. Based on the results, recommendations are given to enhance the acceptance and application of 3R toxicokinetic methods in food safety evaluations. These include steering of regulatory data requirements as well as creating (funding) opportunities for development and validation of alternative methods for kinetics and development of guidances.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)145-151
JournalRegulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Volume92
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2018

Fingerprint

Food safety
Food Safety
Expert Testimony
Kinetics
Animals
Testing
Chemical Safety
Industry
Postal Service
Legislation

Keywords

  • Alternatives to animal testing
  • Drivers and barriers
  • Food toxicology
  • Multilevel perspective on technology transitions
  • QIVIVE
  • Regulatory acceptance

Cite this

@article{a6ee0cba923a490295ffa28a3fa24c43,
title = "Expert opinions on the acceptance of alternative methods in food safety evaluations: Formulating recommendations to increase acceptance of non-animal methods for kinetics",
abstract = "Inclusion of alternative methods that replace, reduce, or refine (3R) animal testing within regulatory safety evaluations of chemicals generally faces many hurdles. The goal of the current work is to i) collect responses from key stakeholders involved in food safety evaluations on what they consider the most relevant factors that influence the acceptance and use of 3R methods and to ii) use these responses to formulate activities needed to increase the acceptance and use of 3R methods, particularly for kinetics. The stakeholders were contacted by e-mail for their opinions, asking the respondents to write down three barriers and/or drivers and scoring these by distributing 5 points over the three factors. The main barriers that obtained the highest aggregated scores were i) uncertain predictability 3R methods/lack of validation, ii) insufficient guidance regulators/industry and iii) insufficient harmonization of legislation. The major driver identified was the possibility of 3R methods to provide more mechanistic information. Based on the results, recommendations are given to enhance the acceptance and application of 3R toxicokinetic methods in food safety evaluations. These include steering of regulatory data requirements as well as creating (funding) opportunities for development and validation of alternative methods for kinetics and development of guidances.",
keywords = "Alternatives to animal testing, Drivers and barriers, Food toxicology, Multilevel perspective on technology transitions, QIVIVE, Regulatory acceptance",
author = "Ans Punt and Hans Bouwmeester and Schiffelers, {Marie Jeanne W.A.} and Peijnenburg, {Ad A.C.M.}",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.11.015",
language = "English",
volume = "92",
pages = "145--151",
journal = "Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology",
issn = "0273-2300",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Expert opinions on the acceptance of alternative methods in food safety evaluations

T2 - Formulating recommendations to increase acceptance of non-animal methods for kinetics

AU - Punt, Ans

AU - Bouwmeester, Hans

AU - Schiffelers, Marie Jeanne W.A.

AU - Peijnenburg, Ad A.C.M.

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - Inclusion of alternative methods that replace, reduce, or refine (3R) animal testing within regulatory safety evaluations of chemicals generally faces many hurdles. The goal of the current work is to i) collect responses from key stakeholders involved in food safety evaluations on what they consider the most relevant factors that influence the acceptance and use of 3R methods and to ii) use these responses to formulate activities needed to increase the acceptance and use of 3R methods, particularly for kinetics. The stakeholders were contacted by e-mail for their opinions, asking the respondents to write down three barriers and/or drivers and scoring these by distributing 5 points over the three factors. The main barriers that obtained the highest aggregated scores were i) uncertain predictability 3R methods/lack of validation, ii) insufficient guidance regulators/industry and iii) insufficient harmonization of legislation. The major driver identified was the possibility of 3R methods to provide more mechanistic information. Based on the results, recommendations are given to enhance the acceptance and application of 3R toxicokinetic methods in food safety evaluations. These include steering of regulatory data requirements as well as creating (funding) opportunities for development and validation of alternative methods for kinetics and development of guidances.

AB - Inclusion of alternative methods that replace, reduce, or refine (3R) animal testing within regulatory safety evaluations of chemicals generally faces many hurdles. The goal of the current work is to i) collect responses from key stakeholders involved in food safety evaluations on what they consider the most relevant factors that influence the acceptance and use of 3R methods and to ii) use these responses to formulate activities needed to increase the acceptance and use of 3R methods, particularly for kinetics. The stakeholders were contacted by e-mail for their opinions, asking the respondents to write down three barriers and/or drivers and scoring these by distributing 5 points over the three factors. The main barriers that obtained the highest aggregated scores were i) uncertain predictability 3R methods/lack of validation, ii) insufficient guidance regulators/industry and iii) insufficient harmonization of legislation. The major driver identified was the possibility of 3R methods to provide more mechanistic information. Based on the results, recommendations are given to enhance the acceptance and application of 3R toxicokinetic methods in food safety evaluations. These include steering of regulatory data requirements as well as creating (funding) opportunities for development and validation of alternative methods for kinetics and development of guidances.

KW - Alternatives to animal testing

KW - Drivers and barriers

KW - Food toxicology

KW - Multilevel perspective on technology transitions

KW - QIVIVE

KW - Regulatory acceptance

U2 - 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.11.015

DO - 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.11.015

M3 - Article

VL - 92

SP - 145

EP - 151

JO - Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

JF - Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

SN - 0273-2300

ER -