SummaryGrouping of substances and utilizing read-across of data within those groups represents an important data gap filling technique for chemical safety assessments. Categories/analogue groups are typically developed based on structural similarity and, increasingly often, also on mechanistic (biological) similarity. While read-across can play a key role in complying with legislation such as the European REACH regulation, the lack of consensus regarding the extent and type of evidence necessary to support it often hampers its successful application and acceptance by regulatory authorities. Despite a potentially broad user community, expertise is still concentrated across a handful of organizations and individuals. In order to facilitate the effective use of read-across, this document presents the state of the art, summarizes insights learned from reviewing ECHA published decisions regarding the relative successes/pitfalls surrounding read-across under REACH, and compiles the relevant activities and guidance documents. Special emphasis is given to the available existing tools and approaches, an analysis of ECHA's published final decisions associated with all levels of compliance checks and testing proposals, the consideration and expression of uncertainty, the use of biological support data, and the impact of the ECHA Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) published in 2015.

This report is prepared according to the Guidelines for CERHR Panel Members established by NTP/NIEHS. The guidelines are available on the CERHR web site (http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/). The format for Expert Panel Reports includes synopses of studies reviewed, followed by an evaluation of the Strengths/Weaknesses and Utility (Adequacy) of the study for CERHR evaluation. Statements and conclusions made under Strengths/Weaknesses and Utility evaluations are those of the Expert Panel and are prepared according to the NTP/NIEHS guidelines. In addition, the Panel often makes comments or notes limitations in the synopses of the study. Bold, square brackets are used to enclose such statements. As discussed in the guidelines, square brackets are used to enclose key items of information not provided in a publication, limitations noted in the study, conclusions that dif fer from those of the authors, and conversions or analyses of data conducted by the Panel. NIH Public Access PREFACEThe National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) established the NTP Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) in June 1998. The purpose of the Center is to provide timely, unbiased, scientifically sound evaluations of human and experimental evidence for adverse effects on reproduction and development caused by agents to which humans may be exposed.Genistein was selected for expert panel evaluation because of public concern for the possible health effects of human exposures. Genistein is a phytoestrogen found in some legumes, especially soybeans. Phytoestrogens are non-steroidal, estrogenic compounds that occur naturally in many plants. In plants, nearly all genistein is bound to a sugar molecule and this genistein-sugar complex is called genistin. Genistein and genistin are found in many food products, especially soy-based foods such as tofu, soy milk, and soy infant formula, and in some over-the-counter dietary supplements.To obtain information about genistein for the CERHR evaluation, the PubMed (Medline) and Toxline databases were searched through February 2006 with genistein and its CAS RN (446-72-0), soy, soya, and relevant keywords. References were also identified from databases such as REPROTOX ® , HSDB, IRIS, and DART and from the bibliographies of reports being reviewed.This evaluation results from the effort of a 14-member panel of government and nongovernment scientists that culminated in a public expert panel meeting held March [15][16][17] 2006. This report is a product of the expert panel and is intended to (1) interpret the strength of scientific evidence that genistein is a reproductive or developmental toxicant based on data from in vitro, animal, or human studies, (2) assess the extent of human exposures to include the general public, occupational groups, and other sub-populations, (3) provide objective and scientifically thorough assessments of the scientific evidence that adverse reproductive/ developmental health effects may be associated wi...

Weight of evidence (WoE) approaches are recommended for interpreting various toxicological data, but few systematic and transparent procedures exist. A hypothesis-based WoE framework was recently published focusing on the U.S. EPA's Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Battery (ESB) as an example. The framework recommends weighting each experimental endpoint according to its relevance for deciding eight hypotheses addressed by the ESB. Here we present detailed rationale for weighting the ESB endpoints according to three rank ordered categories and an interpretive process for using the rankings to reach WoE determinations. Rank 1 was assigned to in vivo endpoints that characterize the fundamental physiological actions for androgen, estrogen, and thyroid activities. Rank 1 endpoints are specific and sensitive for the hypothesis, interpretable without ancillary data, and rarely confounded by artifacts or nonspecific activity. Rank 2 endpoints are specific and interpretable for the hypothesis but less informative than Rank 1, often due to oversensitivity, inclusion of narrowly context-dependent components of the hormonal system (e.g., in vitro endpoints), or confounding by nonspecific activity. Rank 3 endpoints are relevant for the hypothesis but only corroborative of Ranks 1 and 2 endpoints. Rank 3 includes many apical in vivo endpoints that can be affected by systemic toxicity and nonhormonal activity. Although these relevance weight rankings (W REL ) necessarily involve professional judgment, their a priori derivation enhances transparency and renders WoE determinations amenable to methodological scrutiny according to basic scientific premises, characteristics that cannot be assured by processes in which the rationale for decisions is provided post hoc.

No abstract

A SETAC Pellston Workshop® “Environmental Hazard and Risk Assessment Approaches for Endocrine-Active Substances (EHRA)” was held in February 2016 in Pensacola, Florida, USA. The primary objective of the workshop was to provide advice, based on current scientific understanding, to regulators and policy makers; the aim being to make considered, informed decisions on whether to select an ecotoxicological hazard- or a risk-based approach for regulating a given endocrinedisrupting substance (EDS) under review. The workshop additionally considered recent developments in the identification of EDS. Case studies were undertaken on 6 endocrine-active substances (EAS—not necessarily proven EDS, but substances known to interact directly with the endocrine system) that are representative of a range of perturbations of the endocrine system and considered to be data rich in relevant information at multiple biological levels of organization for 1 or more ecologically relevant taxa. The substances selected were 17α-ethinylestradiol, perchlorate, propiconazole, 17β-trenbolone, tributyltin, and vinclozolin. The 6 case studies were not comprehensive safety evaluations but provided foundations for clarifying key issues and procedures that should be considered when assessing the ecotoxicological hazards and risks of EAS and EDS. The workshop also highlighted areas of scientific uncertainty, and made specific recommendations for research and methods-development to resolve some of the identified issues. The present paper provides broad guidance for scientists in regulatory authorities, industry, and academia on issues likely to arise during the ecotoxicological hazard and risk assessment of EAS and EDS. The primary conclusion of this paper, and of the SETAC Pellston Workshop on which it is based, is that if data on environmental exposure, effects on sensitive species and life-stages, delayed effects, and effects at low concentrations are robust, initiating environmental risk assessment of EDS is scientifically sound and sufficiently reliable and protective of the environment. In the absence of such data, assessment on the basis of hazard is scientifically justified until such time as relevant new information is available.