What is it about?
Research methods that used innovative non-animal techniques for filling hazard data gaps for 261 high production volume chemicals, eliminated the need for over 1,200 animal tests that would have sacrificed 115,000 to 150,000 animals within voluntary chemical programmes. The research also showed that between $50 million and $70 million [US] in associated testing costs were avoided.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
We hope the realised benefits in using these approaches resonate with regulators and industry safety experts whose job it is to assess the necessity for animal testing in situations where scientifically justified chemical categories exist. Hopefully, this will allow for reliable read-across to be performed, and non-animal testing methods can be used to predict hazard endpoints.
Perspectives
ACI and the industry demonstrated its adherence to the principles of the 3Rs for the more ethical use of animals - replacement, reduction and refinement - in creating and making publicly available hazard datasets for 261 chemicals.
Ms. Kathleen Stanton
American Cleaning Institute
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Quantifying the benefits of using read-across and in silico techniques to fulfill hazard data requirements for chemical categories, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, September 2016, Elsevier,
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.09.004.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
