Search

Objectives: In this commentary we analyze how much data will in fact be generated within REACH. Conclusions: We conclude that the data requirements for many end points still have not been determined but depend on prioritization criteria and waiving practices that will be decided in the years to come. We propose six important steps toward an improved REACH: a) Clarify prioritization and waiving criteria. Implement decisions to ensure that sufficient data are obtained to make first hazard assessments of as many substances and end points as possible. b) Increase data requirements. Introduce data requirements similar to those currently required for substances produced or imported in quantities of > or = 10 metric tons/year for substances produced or imported in quantities of > or = 1 metric tons/year. c) Develop the tests and approaches needed to satisfy the information requirements taking into account resource limitations and the aim to reduce animal testing. d) Promote substitution of high risk chemicals. Create an effective process for identifying substances of very high concern and for making the appropriate risk management decisions for these substances. e) Address the control of substances incorporated in articles. And f) acknowledge uncertainties. Systematically report lack of data and include this as a basis for risk management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study has two parts. In the first part, fourteen carcinogen risk assessments of acrylamide made by different expert groups during the years 1976–2002 are compared in terms of their overall conclusions and their use of primary data. In the second part, the public debate on acrylamide and cancer risks and the questioning of the expert risk assessment, that arose as a reaction to the identification of this substance in staple food is discussed. In the first part it is shown that the expert risk assessors concur to a large degree about the assessment of the acrylamide potential to cause cancer. Three risk assessors have concluded that acrylamide is neither carcinogenic to humans nor to animals, while eleven risk assessors have concluded that acrylamide is carcinogenic in animals and is likely to be carcinogenic in humans. The differences in the overall conclusions seem to a large extent be explained by an evolving database. The risk assessors agree considerably on how to interpret and evaluate the available primary data, but the coverage of the available references is low. These results are also compared to those previously published on risk assessments of trichloroethylene. In the second part the arguments used in the public debate to question the expert risk assessment are summarized and it is argued that they are not based on the principles generally accepted in toxicological risk assessment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: UV-filters are chemicals with potentially environmental hazardous properties. In the European Union (EU), UV-filters contained in sunscreen products are currently regulated by the Cosmetic Directive (from July 2013 by the Cosmetic Products Regulation). Environmental hazard classifications according to the regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP) must be determined for UV-filters contained in industrial chemical products, whereas UV-filters contained in sunscreens are exempted from CLP. In this study we determined the potential environmental hazard classifications of UV-filters and sunscreen products if the CLP regulation was to be required for cosmetic products. Two sunscreen products were evaluated in accordance with the aquatic environmental hazard criteria for mixtures. The results highlight that the inconsistencies in the current EU regulation of UV filters hamper the risk management of environmental hazards of UV filters used in cosmetic products. Almost 50% of the investigated UV-filters approved for use in cosmetic products on the European market according to the current Cosmetic Directive were identified to meet the CLP classification as being hazardous to the aquatic environment. Assuming a worst-case scenario, the two examined sunscreens could both be classified as hazardous to the aquatic environment with long-lasting effects according to CLP classification criteria. Hence, if the CLP regulation was applicable to sunscreen products, both brands could potentially be labelled with the environmental hazard pictogram and associated hazard and precautionary statements. Including cosmetic products, and thereby sunscreens, in the CLP regulation would contribute to a more harmonized and transparent regulation of potentially hazardous substances on the EU market. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In 2005 the Swedish Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry (LIF) initiated a national environmental classification and information system for pharmaceuticals. This investigation reports the results from a survey, conducted among the persons involved in the start-up process. The aim of this study is to generate knowledge contributing to the clarification of the motivations, expectations, and intentions underlying the development and implementation of the system. The decision to implement a classification and information system for pharmaceuticals was the result of a combination of several driving forces, mainly political pressure and a possibility to increase the industries'' goodwill, while at the same time keeping the process under the industries'' control. The expected possible effects of the system, other than increased goodwill, are according to this survey assumed to be low. The system offers little guidance for end-users in the substitution of one pharmaceutical for another. One possible reason for this could be that LIF needs to observe the interests of all its members'' and should not affect competition. The affiliation of the involved actors correlates to how these actors view and value the system, but this has not hampered the collaborative process to develop and implement it. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The presence of pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment, and the concerns for negative effects on aquatic organisms, has gained increasing attention over the last years. As ecotoxicity data are lacking for most active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), it is important to identify strategies to prioritise APIs for ecotoxicity testing and environmental monitoring. We have used nine previously proposed prioritisation schemes, both risk- and hazard-based, to rank 582 APIs. The similarities and differences in overall ranking results and input data were compared. Moreover, we analysed how well the methods ranked seven relatively well-studied APIs. It is concluded that the hazard-based methods were more successful in correctly ranking the well-studied APIs, but the fish plasma model, which includes human pharmacological data, also showed a high success rate. The results of the analyses show that the input data availability vary significantly; some data, such as logP, are available for most API while information about environmental concentrations and bioconcentration are still scarce. The results also suggest that the exposure estimates in risk-based methods need to be improved and that the inclusion of effect measures at first-tier prioritisation might underestimate risks. It is proposed that in order to develop an adequate prioritisation scheme, improved data on exposure such as degradation and sewage treatment removal and bioconcentration ability should be further considered. The use of ATC codes may also be useful for the development of a prioritisation scheme that includes the mode of action of pharmaceuticals and, to some extent, mixture effects. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]