July 25, 2018

NO MORE FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON:

Artificial intelligence outperforms the repetitive animal tests in identifying toxic chemicals (Thomas Hartung, 7/25/18, The Conversation)

Our computerized testing is possible because of Europe's REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorizations and Restriction of Chemicals) legislation: It was the first worldwide regulation to systematical log existing industrial chemicals. Over a period of one decade from 2008 to 2018, at least those chemicals produced or marketed at more than 1 ton per year in Europe had to be registered with increasing safety test information depending on the quantity sold.

Our team published a critical analysis of European testing demands in 2009 that concluded the demands of the legislation could only be met by adopting new methods of chemical analysis. Europe does not track new chemicals below an annual market or production volume of 1 ton. But the similar size U.S. chemical industry brings about 1,000 chemicals at this tonnage range to the market each year. However, Europe does a much better job in requesting safety data. This also highlights how many new substances should be assessed every year even when they are produced in small quantities below 1 ton, which are not regulated in Europe. Inexpensive and fast computer methods lend themselves to this purpose.

Our group took advantage of the fact that REACH made its safety data on registered chemicals publicly available. In 2016, we reformatted the REACH data, making it machine-readable and creating the largest toxicological database ever. It logged 10,000 chemicals and connected them to the 800,000 associated studies.

This laid the foundation for testing whether animals tests - considered the gold standard for safety testing - were reproducible. Some chemicals were tested surprisingly often in the same animal test. For example, two chemicals were tested more than 90 times in rabbit eyes; 69 chemicals were tested more than 45 times. This enormous waste of animals, however, enabled us to study whether these animal tests yielded consistent results.

Our analysis showed that these tests, which consume more than 2 million animals per year worldwide, are simply not very reliable - when tested in animals a chemical known to be toxic is only proven so in about 70 percent of repeated animal tests. These were animal tests done according to OECD test guidelines under Good Laboratory Practice - which is to say, the best you can get. This clearly shows that the quality of these tests is overrated and agencies must try alternative strategies to assess the toxicity of various compounds.

Posted by at July 25, 2018 4:24 AM

  

« FRIENDS OF RUSSIA: | Main | THE GOP WAS ONLY EVER GOING TO MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE: »