Accelerating the Pace of Chemical Risk Assessment

Changes in chemical regulations worldwide have increased the demand for new data on chemical safety. New approach methodologies (NAMs) are defined broadly here as including in silico approaches and in chemico and in vitro assays, as well as the inclusion of information from the exposure of chemicals in the context of hazard [European Chemicals Agency, " New Approach Methodologies in Regulatory Science ", 2016]. NAMs for toxicity testing, including alternatives to animal testing approaches, have shown promise to provide a large amount of data to fill information gaps in both hazard and exposure. In order to increase experience with the new data and to advance the applications of NAM data to evaluate the safety of data-poor chemicals, demonstration case studies have to be developed to build confidence in their usability. Case studies can be used to explore the domains of applicability of the NAM data and identify areas that would benefit from further research, development, and application. To ensure that this science evolves with direct input from and engagement by risk managers and regulatory decision makers, a workshop was convened among senior leaders from international regulatory agencies to identify common barriers for using NAMs and to propose next steps to address them. Central to the workshop were a series of collaborative case studies designed to explore areas where the benefits of NAM data could be demonstrated. These included use of in vitro bioassays data in combination with exposure estimates to derive a quantitative assessment of risk, use of NAMs for updating chemical categorizations, and use of NAMs to increase understanding of exposure and human health toxicity of various chemicals. The case study approach proved effective in building collaborations and engagement with regulatory decision makers and to promote the importance of data and knowledge sharing among international regulatory agencies. The case studies will be continued to explore new ways of describing hazard (i.e., pathway perturbations as a measure of adversity) and new ways of describing risk (i.e., using NAMs to identify protective levels without necessarily being predictive of a specific hazard). Importantly, the case studies also highlighted the need for increased training and communication across the various communities including the risk assessors, regulators, stakeholders (e.g., industry, non-governmental organizations), and the general public. The development and application of NAMs will play an increasing role in filling important data gaps on the safety of chemicals, but confidence in NAMs will only come with learning by doing and sharing in the experience.