Existing approaches incorporating replacement, reduction and refinement of animal testing: applicability in food and feed risk assessment

Cheminformatics and artificial intelligence for accelerating agrochemical discovery

The global cost-benefit analysis of pesticide use during the last 30 years has been characterized by a significant increase during the period from 1990 to 2007 followed by a decline. This observation can be attributed to several factors including, but not limited to, pest resistance, lack of novelty with respect to modes of action or classes of chemistry, and regulatory action. Due to current and projected increases of the global population, it is evident that the demand for food, and consequently, the usage of pesticides to improve yields will increase. Addressing these challenges and needs while promoting new crop protection agents through an increasingly stringent regulatory landscape requires the development and integration of infrastructures for innovative, cost- and time-effective discovery and development of novel and sustainable molecules. Significant advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and cheminformatics over the last two decades have improved the decision-making power of research scientists in the discovery of bioactive molecules. AI- and cheminformatics-driven molecule discovery offers the opportunity of moving experiments from the greenhouse to a virtual environment where thousands to billions of molecules can be investigated at a rapid pace, providing unbiased hypothesis for lead generation, optimization, and effective suggestions for compound synthesis and testing. To date, this is illustrated to a far lesser extent in the publicly available agrochemical research literature compared to drug discovery. In this review, we provide an overview of the crop protection discovery pipeline and how traditional, cheminformatics, and AI technologies can help to address the needs and challenges of agrochemical discovery towards rapidly developing novel and more sustainable products.

Toxicity Tests for Chemical Pesticide Registration: Requirement Differences among the United States, the European Union, Japan, and China?

Pesticide registration is a scientific, legal, and administrative process that checks if a pesticide is safe and effective for its intended use before it can be used. The toxicity test is a key part of pesticide registration, which includes human health and ecological effect testing. Different countries adopt their own toxicity test criteria for pesticide registration guidelines. However, these differences, which may help accelerate the progress of pesticide registration and reduce the number of animals used, are yet to be explored and compared. Herein, we outlined the details and compared the differences between the toxicity tests in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and China. Some differences lie in the types and waiver policy, while others are in new approach methodologies (NAMs). On the basis of these differences, there is great potential for the optimization of NAMs during the toxicity tests. It is expected that this perspective can contribute to developing and adopting NAMs.

Use of new approach methodologies (NAMs) to meet regulatory requirements for the assessment of industrial chemicals and pesticides for effects on human health

New approach methodologies (NAMs) are increasingly being used for regulatory decision making by agencies worldwide because of their potential to reliably and efficiently produce information that is fit for purpose while reducing animal use. This article summarizes the ability to use NAMs for the assessment of human health effects of industrial chemicals and pesticides within the United States, Canada, and European Union regulatory frameworks. While all regulations include some flexibility to allow for the use of NAMs, the implementation of this flexibility varies across product type and regulatory scheme. This article provides an overview of various agencies' guidelines and strategic plans on the use of NAMs, and specific examples of the successful application of NAMs to meet regulatory requirements. It also summarizes intra- and inter-agency collaborations that strengthen scientific, regulatory, and public confidence in NAMs, thereby fostering their global use as reliable and relevant tools for toxicological evaluations. Ultimately, understanding the current regulatory landscape helps inform the scientific community on the steps needed to further advance timely uptake of approaches that best protect human health and the environment.

Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials to be applied in the food and feed chain: human and animal health

The EFSA has updated the Guidance on risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain, human and animal health. It covers the application areas within EFSA's remit, including novel foods, food contact materials, food/feed additives and pesticides. The updated guidance, now Scientific Committee Guidance on nano risk assessment (SC Guidance on Nano-RA), has taken account of relevant scientific studies that provide insights to physico-chemical properties, exposure assessment and hazard characterisation of nanomaterials and areas of applicability. Together with the accompanying Guidance on Technical requirements for regulated food and feed product applications to establish the presence of small particles including nanoparticles (Guidance on Particle-TR), the SC Guidance on Nano-RA specifically elaborates on physico-chemical characterisation, key parameters that should be measured, methods and techniques that can be used for characterisation of nanomaterials and their determination in complex matrices. The SC Guidance on Nano-RA also details aspects relating to exposure assessment and hazard identification and characterisation. In particular, nanospecific considerations relating to in vitro/in vivo toxicological studies are discussed and a tiered framework for toxicological testing is outlined. Furthermore, in vitro degradation, toxicokinetics, genotoxicity, local and systemic toxicity as well as general issues relating to testing of nanomaterials are described. Depending on the initial tier results, additional studies may be needed to investigate reproductive and developmental toxicity, chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity, immunotoxicity and allergenicity, neurotoxicity, effects on gut microbiome and endocrine activity. The possible use of read-across to fill data gaps as well as the potential use of integrated testing strategies and the knowledge of modes or mechanisms of action are also discussed. The Guidance proposes approaches to risk characterisation and uncertainty analysis.

Sucralose Non-Carcinogenicity: A Review of the Scientific and Regulatory Rationale

Regulatory authorities worldwide have found the nonnutritive sweetener, sucralose, to be noncarcinogenic, based on a range of studies. A review of these and other studies found through a comprehensive search of electronic databases, using appropriate key terms, was conducted and results of that review are reported here. An overview of the types of studies relied upon by regulatory agencies to assess carcinogenicity potential is also provided as context. Physiochemical and pharmacokinetic/toxicokinetic studies confirm stability under conditions of use and reveal no metabolites of carcinogenic potential. In vitro and in vivo assays reveal no confirmed genotoxic activity. Long-term carcinogenicity studies in animal models provide no evidence of carcinogenic potential for sucralose. In studies in healthy adults, sucralose was well-tolerated and without evidence of toxicity or other changes that might suggest a potential for carcinogenic effects. In summary, sucralose does not demonstrate carcinogenic activity even when exposure levels are several orders of magnitude greater than the range of anticipated daily ingestion levels.