Contact me

Dec 21, 20233 min read

Navigating the Future of Toxicology: Unveiling the Power of In Vitro Methods

Toxicology, the study of the adverse effects of chemicals on living organisms, has long been a critical field in ensuring the safety of...

The US EPA is at the forefront again. With the affirmation that in vitro and other non-animal assays provide information on par or superior to the in vivo rabbit test, the agency has introduced a decision framework to identify chemical hazards to the eye. Therefore, the evaluation of new chemicals for eye irritation/corrosion under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) will have improved consistency and transparency!

https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/framework-assess-eye-irritation-or

Witnessing tangible transformations in the world as a result of your efforts is truly fulfilling. While my contribution may have been modest in scale, it carried meaningful importance in the overall context.

I am thrilled about the EPA's newly issued framework for testing eye irritation and corrosion, which exclusively employs non-animal methods. I'm grateful for the collective efforts of the #USEPA, #PETA, #IIVS, #NIH, #NICEATM, and, of course, #OECD.

EPA Releases Review on Flexibility of Animal Testing Regulations and Use of New Approach Methods (NAMs)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a review summarizing which laws and regulations require vertebrate animal testing. The report finds that many regulations guiding the EPA's authority are flexible and do not exclude using New Approach Methods (NAMs), which are alternatives to animal testing for chemical hazard and risk assessments.

This report is part of EPA’s NAMs Work Plan, initially released in 2020 and updated in 2021. The plan aims to reduce reliance on animal testing while ensuring assessments remain protective of human health and the environment. Today's report accomplishes the first objective: evaluating the regulatory flexibility to accommodate NAMs.The findings show that different laws approach NAMs and animal testing differently. For instance, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) encourages reducing animal testing when scientifically justified, while some pesticide regulations mandate vertebrate testing. However, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFA) allows EPA flexibility in determining required data and accepting alternative tests, such as in vitro and in silico methods.

The EPA ensures that all data, whether from animal testing or NAMs, meet high scientific standards and undergo peer review. The report concludes that NAMs can be incorporated into EPA decisions as long as scientific rigor is maintained, with attention to each method’s strengths and limitations.

For more information and to access the report, visit EPA’s website: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/epa-new-approach-methods-work-plan-reducing-use-vertebrate-animals-chemical