Safety evaluations under the proposed US safe cosmetics and personal care products Act of 2013: Animal use and cost estimates

Altex

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 177-208

  Knight, Jean ^a   Rovida, Costanza ^b  

^a Environmental Consultant   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Alternative test methods; Animal testing; Cosmetics safety; Safe cosmetics and personal care products Act of 2013 H.R. 1385

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVE; COST; EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL WELFARE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; NONHUMAN; REVIEW; UNITED STATES; ANIMAL; DRUG LEGISLATION; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PROCEDURES; PRODUCT SAFETY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTING;

COSMETIC;

ANIMAL TESTING ALTERNATIVES; ANIMALS; CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY; COSMETICS; HUMANS; LEGISLATION, DRUG; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84901847310     PISSN: 1868596X     EISSN: 18688551     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14573/altex.1309271     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Adler, S., Basketter, D., Creton, S., et al. (2011). Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current and future prospects - 2010. Arch Toxicol 85, 367-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00204-011-0693-2
2. Basketter, D., Casati, S., Gerberick, G. F., et al. (2005). 4. Skin sensitisation. Altern Lab Anim 33, Suppl 1, 83-103. http://www.frame.org.uk/ atla.php?art-id=134&pdf=true
3. Basketter, D. A., Clewell, H., Kimber, I., et al. (2012). A road-map for the development of alternative (non-animal) methods for systemic toxicity testing. ALTEX 29, 3-91. http://www.altex.ch/All-issues/Issue.50.html?iid= 129&aid=1
4. Bishop, P. L, Manuppello, J. R., Willett, C. E., and Sandler, J. T. (2012). Animal use and lessons learned in the U.S. High Production Volume Chemicals Challenge Program. Environ Health Perspect 120, 1631-1639.
5. Bottini, A. and Hartung, T. (2009). Food for thought ... on the economics of animal testing. ALTEX 26, 3-16. http://www.altex.ch/All-issues/Issue.50. html?iid=104&aid=1
6. Cooper, R. L., Lamb, J., Barlow, S., et al. (2006). A tiered approach to life stages testing for agricultural chemical safety assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol 36, 69-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408440500541367 (Pubitemid 43372197)
7. Corbett, J. F., Sharma, R. K., and Dressler, W. E. (1999). Cosmetic toxicology. In H. Marquardt, S. G. Schäfer, R. O. McClellan, and F. Welsch (ed.). Toxicology. Academic Press. 899-918.
8. EURL ECVAM (2013). EURL ECVAM recommendation on the 3T3 neutral red uptake cytotoxicity assay for acute oral toxicity testing. JRC79556 EUR 25946 EN, 1-46.
9. EC - European Commission (2006). Regulation (EC) of No 1907/2006 of the European parliament and of the council 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EE C) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EE C and Commission Directives 91/155/EE C, 93/67/EE C, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC.
10. EC (2007). Commission Staff Working Document - Annex to the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Fifth report on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union. SEC. 1455, 1-277.
11. EC (2009a). Regulation (EC) of No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products.
12. EC (2009b). Commission Regulation (EC) No 134/2009 of 16 February 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).
13. EC (2010). Commission Staff Working Document - Accompanying document to the Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Sixth report on the statistics on the number of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes in the member states of the European Union. SEC. 1107, 1-311.
14. ECHA (2011). The use of alternatives to testing on animals for the REACH regulation. ECHA-11-R-004.2-EN.
15. ECHA (2012a). Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment, Chapter R.7a, Endpoint specific guidance. ECHA-12-G-11-EN.
16. ECHA (2012b): Report on Survey of Worldwide CROs: Costs and Practicalities of Two New OECD Guidelines for Testing Chemical Substances: OECD TG 442, Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study, and OECD TG 488, Transgenic Rodent Somatic and Germ Cell Mutation Assay. Prepared by CEHTRA (Consultancy for Environment and Human Toxicology and Risk Assessment), Nottingham UK, June 2012.
17. FDA (2012). Draft guidance for industry: Safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/ucm300886. htm#toxicology
18. Fleischer, M. (2007). Testing costs and testing capacity according to the REACH requirements - results of a survey of independent and corporate GLP laboratories in the EU and Switzerland. Journal of Business Chemistry 3, 96-114.
19. Global Insight (2007). A study of the European cosmetics industry. Prepared for the European Commission, Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry. http://bit.ly/1jm1k9c
20. Hartung, T. (2008). Food for thought ... on alternative methods for cosmetics safety testing. ALTEX 25, 147-162. http://www.altex.ch/All-issues/ Issue.50.html?iid=101&aid=1
21. Hofer, T., Gerner, I., Gundert-Remy, U., et al. (2004). Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation. Arch Toxicol 78, 549-564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00204-004-0577-9 (Pubitemid 39591625)
22. H.R.1385 (2013). A bill to amend title VI of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ensure the safe use of cosmetics, and for other purposes. 1-59.
23. IGHRC - Interdepartmental Group on Health Risks from Chemicals (2006). Guidelines on route-to-route extrapolation of toxicity data when assessing health risks of chemicals. Institute of Environment and Health, Cranfield University, Silsoe, Bedfordshire, UK. http://www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk/ieh/ ighrc/ighrc.html
24. Maurici, D., Aardema, M., Corvi, R., et al. (2005). Genotoxicity and mutagenicity. Altern Lab Anim 33, 117-130. (Pubitemid 41039560)
25. Nohynek, G. J., Antignac, E., Re, T., and Toutain, H. (2010). Safety assessment of personal care products/cosmetics and their ingredients. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 243, 239-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2009.12.001
26. NRC - National Research Council (2007). Toxicity testing in the twenty-first century: A vision and a strategy. Washington DC, USA: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record-id=11970
27. OECD (2004a). Chapter 2. Data gathering. In OECD (ed.). Manual for the Assessment of Chemicals. 1-33.
28. OECD (2004b). OECD guidance document for neurotoxicity testing. 67 pp.
29. OECD (2008). Guidance Document for Mammalian Reproductive Toxicity Testing and Assessment. 88 pp.
30. OECD (2012). Guidance Document on Standardised Test Guidelines for Evaluating Chemicals for Endocrine Disruption. Series on Testing and Assessment. No. 150.
31. Pedersen, F., de Bruijn, J., Munn, S., and van Leeuwen, K. (2003). Assessment of additional testing needs under REACH - effects of (Q)SARs, risk based testing and voluntary industry initiatives. JRC Report EUR 20863.
32. Personal Care Products Council (2012). Email communication, including estimate of new ingredients per year, from Glenda Williams, Director of International Regulatory Affairs, Personal Care Products Council. August 2, 2012.
33. Rovida, C. (2011). Local lymph node assay: How testing laboratories apply OECD TG 429 for REACH purposes. ALTEX 28, 117-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.14573/ altex.2011.2.117
34. Rovida, C. and Hartung, T. (2009). Re-evaluation of animal numbers and costs for in vivo tests to accomplish REACH legislation requirements for chemicals - a report by the Transatlantic Think Tank for Toxicology. ALTEX 26, 187-208. http://www.altex.ch/All-issues/Issue.50.html?iid=107&aid=4
35. Rovida, C., Longo, F., and Rabbit, R. R. (2011). How are reproductive toxicity and developmental toxicity addressed in REACH dossiers? ALTEX 28, 111-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.14573/altex.2011.4.273
36. RPA & Statistics (2002). RPA and Statistics Sweden (2002). Assessment of the impact of new regulations in the chemicals sector. Final Report. Prepared for European Commission Enterprise Directorate General. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/reach/docs/whitepaper/bia-report-2002-06-en.pdf
37. SCCS (2010). The SCCS's notes of guidance for the testing of cosmetic ingredients and their safety evaluation.7th Revision. European Commission, Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection, December 14, 2010.
38. SCCP (2012). Draft decision on guidelines annex I: Commission implementing decision on guidelines on annex I to Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 on cosmetic products.12/SANCO/COS/24. November 5, 2012.
39. US EPA - Environmental Protection Agency (2012). Excerpt from the US EPA's web site. http://epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/fqpa- accomplishments.htm (accessed Oct 2012).
40. van der Jagt, K., Munn, S., Torslov, J., and de Bruijn, J. (2004). Alternative approaches can reduce the use of test animals under REACH. Addendum to the report: Assessment of additional testing needs under REACH. Effects of (Q)SARS, risk-based testing and voluntary industry initiatives. JRC REPORT EUR 21405. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/8790/ 1/EUR%2021405%20EN.pdf (accessed Oct 2012).
41. Vinken, M., Pauwels, M., Ates, G., et al. (2011). Screening of repeated dose toxicity data present in SCC(NF)P/SCCS safety evaluations of cosmetic ingredients. Arch Toxicol 86, 405-412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00204-011- 0769-z