The Cumulative Risk Assessment of Hepatotoxic Chemicals: A Hepatic Histopathology Perspective

Abstract

The increased concern on the consequence of exposure to multiple chemical combinations has led national regulatory authorities to develop different concepts to conduct risk assessments on chemical mixtures. Pesticide residues were identified as “problem formulation” in the respective European regulations and in this context, the European Food and Safety Authority has suggested to group pesticidal active ingredients (AIs) into cumulative assessment groups (CAGs) based on the toxicological properties of each AI. One proposed CAG, on the liver, currently consists of 15 subgroups, each representing a specific hepatotoxic effect observed in toxicity studies. Dietary cumulative risk assessments would then have to be conducted assuming dose additivity of all members of each CAG subgroup. The purpose of this publication is to group AIs based upon the knowledge of the pathogenesis of liver effects to discriminate between primary end points (direct consequence of chemical interaction with a biological target) and secondary end points (which are a consequence of, or that arise out of, a previous pathological change). Focusing on the relevant primary end points strengthens and simplifies the selection of compounds for cumulative risk assessment regarding the liver and better rationalizes the basis for chemical grouping. Relevant dose additivity is to be expected at the level of the primary/leading pathological end points and not at the level of the secondary end points. We recognize, however, that special consideration is needed for substances provoking neoplasia, and this category is included in the group of primary end points for which chemicals inducing them are grouped for risk assessment. Using the pathological basis for defining the respective CAGs, 6 liver subgroups and 2 gallbladder/bile duct groups are proposed. This approach simplifies the cumulative assessment calculation without obviously affecting consumer safety.

Basic concepts of mixture toxicity and relevance for risk evaluation and regulation

“…Also grouping principles for additive effects based on specific pathologies, such as cholestasis (Boberg et al 2021 ; Foster et al 2020 ) may be too rough. Although more specific than simply grouping according to the target organ, and therefore representing a legitimate, slightly less conservative second tier assessment, grouping according to pathology, likewise, is too unspecific.…”