EFSA Scientific Colloquium 23 – Joint European Food Safety Authority and Evidence‐Based Toxicology Collaboration Colloquium Evidence integration in risk assessment: the science of combining apples and oranges 25–26 October 2017 Lisbon, Portugal

Replacement of animal testing by integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA): a call for in vivitrosi

Alternative methods to animal use in toxicology are evolving with new advanced tools and multilevel approaches, to answer from one side to 3Rs requirements, and on the other side offering relevant and valid tests for drugs and chemicals, considering also their combination in test strategies, for a proper risk assessment.While stand-alone methods, have demonstrated to be applicable for some specific toxicological predictions with some limitations, the new strategy for the application of New Approach Methods (NAM), to solve complex toxicological endpoints is addressed by Integrated Approaches for Testing and Assessment (IATA), aka Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) or Defined Approaches for Testing and Assessment (DA). The central challenge of evidence integration is shared with the needs of risk assessment and systematic reviews of an evidence-based Toxicology. Increasingly, machine learning (aka Artificial Intelligence, AI) lends itself to integrate diverse evidence streams.In this article, we give an overview of the state of the art of alternative methods and IATA in toxicology for regulatory use for various hazards, outlining future orientation and perspectives. We call on leveraging the synergies of integrated approaches and evidence integration from in vivo, in vitro and in silico as true in vivitrosi.

Automated Network Assembly of Mechanistic Literature for Informed Evidence Identification to Support Cancer Risk Assessment

BACKGROUND

Mechanistic data is increasingly used in hazard identification of chemicals. However, the volume of data is large, challenging the efficient identification and clustering of relevant data.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether evidence identification for hazard assessment can become more efficient and informed through an automated approach that combines machine reading of publications with network visualization tools.

METHODS

We chose 13 chemicals that were evaluated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs program incorporating the key characteristics of carcinogens (KCCs) approach. Using established literature search terms for KCCs, we retrieved and analyzed literature using Integrated Network and Dynamical Reasoning Assembler (INDRA). INDRA combines large-scale literature processing with pathway databases and extracts relationships between biomolecules, bioprocesses, and chemicals into statements (e.g., "benzene activates DNA damage"). These statements were subsequently assembled into networks and compared with the KCC evaluation by the IARC, to evaluate the informativeness of our approach.

RESULTS

We found, in general, larger networks for those chemicals which the IARC has evaluated the evidence to be strong for KCC induction. Larger networks were not directly linked to publication count, given that we retrieved small networks for several chemicals with little support for KCC activation according to the IARC, despite the significant volume of literature for these specific chemicals. In addition, interpreting networks for genotoxicity and DNA repair showed concordance with the IARC KCC evaluation.

DISCUSSION

Our method is an automated approach to condense mechanistic literature into searchable and interpretable networks based on an a priori ontology. The approach is no replacement of expert evaluation but, instead, provides an informed structure for experts to quickly identify which statements are made in which papers and how these could connect. We focused on the KCCs because these are supported by well-described search terms. The method needs to be tested in other frameworks as well to demonstrate its generalizability. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9112.

Open Science in regulatory environmental risk assessment

A possible way to alleviate the public skepticism toward regulatory science is to increase transparency by making all data and value judgments used in regulatory decision making accessible for public interpretation, ideally early on in the process, and following the concepts of Open Science. This paper discusses the opportunities and challenges in strengthening Open Science initiatives in regulatory environmental risk assessment (ERA). In this discussion paper, we argue that the benefits associated with Open Science in regulatory ERA far outweigh its perceived risks. All stakeholders involved in regulatory ERA (e.g., governmental regulatory authorities, private sector, academia, and nongovernmental organizations), as well as professional organizations like the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, can play a key role in supporting the Open Science initiative, by promoting the use of recommended reporting criteria for reliability and relevance of data and tools used in ERA, and by developing a communication strategy for both professionals and nonprofessionals to transparently explain the socioeconomic value judgments and scientific principles underlying regulatory ERA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:1229-1242. © 2021 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Risk Benefit Assessment of foods: Key findings from an international workshop

Whilst risk management measures, including food policy, are developed for the protection of public health and the environment, they may also lead to a reduction in health benefits. Policy decisions require then consideration of these necessary trade-offs, which leads to an increasing need to apply formal risk-benefit assessment (RBA) of foods. In this context, the European Food Safety Authority sponsored a Risk-Benefit Assessment Workshop on "past, current and future developments within the risk-benefit assessment of foods (RBA)" held in May 2017. The overall aims of the RBA Workshop were to discuss existing methods, challenges and needs within RBA, and to draft a roadmap for future development of RBA. The specific objectives were to i) identify RBA activities in Europe and globally; ii) discuss how to further develop and optimize RBA methodology; iii) identify challenges and opportunities within RBA; and iv) increase collaboration internationally. The two-day workshop gathered 28 participants from 16 institutions in 11 countries. It included technical presentations of RBA methods and case studies, and two break-out sessions for group discussions. All participants agreed that RBA has substantial potential to inform risk-management decisions in the areas of food safety, nutrition and public health. Several activities to optimize further developments within RBA were suggested. This paper provides a summary of workshop presentations, a discussion of challenges that limit progress in this area, and suggestions of next steps for this promising approach supporting a science-based decision process in the area of risk-benefit management of foods.