The last resort requirement under REACH: From principle to practice

Donna S. Macmillan, Anders Bergqvist, Eleanor Burgess-Allen, Ian Callan, James Dawick, Benjamin Carrick, Graham Ellis, Roberto Ferro, Katy Goyak, Chantal Smulders, Ricky A. Stackhouse, Espe Troyano, Carl Westmoreland, Blanca Serrano Ramon, Vanessa Rocha, Xiaoling Zhang

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY(2024)

引用 0|浏览0
暂无评分
摘要
REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) is a European Union regulation that aims to protect human health and the environment from the risks posed by chemicals. Article 25 clearly states that: "[i]n order to avoid animal testing, testing on vertebrate animals for the purposes of this Regulation shall be undertaken only as a last resort." In practice, however, the standard information requirements under REACH are still primarily filled using animal studies. This paper presents examples illustrating that animal testing is not always undertaken only as a last resort. Six over-arching issues have been identified which contribute to this: (1) non-acceptance of existing animal or nonanimal data, (2) non-acceptance of read-across, (3) inflexible administrative processes, (4) redundancy of testing, (5) testing despite animal welfare concerns and (6) testing for cosmetic-only ingredients. We, members of the Animal-Free Safety Assessment (AFSA) Collaboration, who work together to accelerate the global adoption of non-animal approaches for chemical safety assessment, herein propose several recommendations intended to aid the European Commission, the European Chemicals Agency and registrants to protect human health and the environment while avoiding unnecessary animal tests - truly upholding the last resort requirement in REACH.
更多
查看译文
关键词
REACH,Chemicals regulations,Last resort requirement,Animal testing,Non-animal approaches
AI 理解论文
溯源树
样例
生成溯源树,研究论文发展脉络
Chat Paper
正在生成论文摘要