Invited contribution: Acute toxicity testing, public responsibility and scientific challenges

Abstract

Knowledge of the acute toxic effects of chemicals is important for the protection of exposed humans. Since sufficient information in humans is often lacking, experiments on laboratory animals must be performed. The LD50 test, which requires large numbers of animals, has become the preferred procedure. It is now widely criticized on scientific and ethical grounds. This paper reviews the possibilities of using fewer animals to obtain relevant information on the acute hazards of chemical substances, but it also identifies the reasons why the traditional testing approaches cannot be changed immediately. An important problem is the practice of basing legal decisions on classification of chemicals in official lists of hazardous substances and for labeling purposes on LD50 values. Proposals are presented on how pain and suffering of the animals included in acute toxicity tests can be reduced. The use of in vitro systems for the evaluation of the hazardous properties of chemicals is discussed.

Alternatives to and Reduction of Animal Use in Biomedical Research, Education and Testing

“…In the mid-1970s, interest in in vitro alternatives to in vivo teratogenicity testing developed. Later, the areas of acute toxicity, particularly the LD50 (7,8), and ocular irritation, received major attention. However, in a review of ocular irritation testing by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1981, only five in vitro test systems were identified (9).…”

“…Since 1980, rapid developments have occurred in the field of in vitro toxicity testing. Initially, these efforts were promoted by individuals (3,7,8,10). However, early on, several organisations developed to pursue these activities.…”

Potential agricultural insecticide exposure of Indiana bats (Myotis Sodalis) in Missouri

“…The classical LD 50 test first introduced by Trevan (1927) , though having wide acceptance as a general measure of acute toxicity, is not without criticism for ethical and scientific reasons (Zbinden 1986). US regulatory agencies, such as the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) , discourage the use of the classical LD 50 test, and accept submission of data from alternative methods that use fewer animals (EPA 1988, FDA 1988.…”

“…The 1985 European Chemical Industry Ecology and Toxicology Centre (ECETOC) report on acute oral toxicity took a similar position (ECETOC 1985). While it is generally accepted that the determination of a precise LD 50 value is not necessary, it is widely agreed that evaluation of acute oral toxicity is still necessary to determine the toxic properties of a chemical (ECETOC 1985, EPA 1988, FDA 1988, Zbinden 1986).…”