American Chemistry Council ACC

Washington, DC, United States

American Chemistry Council ACC

Washington, DC, United States

Time filter

Source Type

Becker R.A.,American Chemistry Council ACC | Patlewicz G.,DuPont Company | Patlewicz G.,US Toxicology | Simon T.W.,Ted Simon LLC | And 2 more authors.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology | Year: 2015

An Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) represents the existing knowledge of a biological pathway leading from initial molecular interactions of a toxicant and progressing through a series of key events (KEs), culminating with an apical adverse outcome (AO) that has to be of regulatory relevance. An AOP based on the mode of action (MOA) of rodent liver tumor promotion by dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) has been developed and the weight of evidence (WoE) of key event relationships (KERs) evaluated using evolved Bradford Hill considerations. Dioxins and DLCs are potent aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) ligands that cause a range of species-specific adverse outcomes. The occurrence of KEs is necessary for inducing downstream biological responses and KEs may occur at the molecular, cellular, tissue and organ levels. The common convention is that an AOP begins with the toxicant interaction with a biological response element; for this AOP, this initial event is binding of a DLC ligand to the AHR. Data from mechanistic studies, lifetime bioassays and approximately thirty initiation-promotion studies have established dioxin and DLCs as rat liver tumor promoters. Such studies clearly show that sustained AHR activation, weeks or months in duration, is necessary to induce rodent liver tumor promotion - hence, sustained AHR activation is deemed the molecular initiating event (MIE). After this MIE, subsequent KEs are 1) changes in cellular growth homeostasis likely associated with expression changes in a number of genes and observed as development of hepatic foci and decreases in apoptosis within foci; 2) extensive liver toxicity observed as the constellation of effects called toxic hepatopathy; 3) cellular proliferation and hyperplasia in several hepatic cell types. This progression of KEs culminates in the AO, the development of hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas and cholangiolar carcinomas. A rich data set provides both qualitative and quantitative knowledge of the progression of this AOP through KEs and the KERs. Thus, the WoE for this AOP is judged to be strong. Species-specific effects of dioxins and DLCs are well known - humans are less responsive than rodents and rodent species differ in sensitivity between strains. Consequently, application of this AOP to evaluate potential human health risks must take these differences into account. © 2015 The Authors.


Patlewicz G.,DuPont Company | Ball N.,Dow Chemical Company | Becker R.A.,American Chemistry Council ACC | Booth E.D.,Hill International | And 6 more authors.
Altex | Year: 2014

Read-across is a data gap filling technique used within category and analogue approaches. It has been utilized as an alternative approach to address information requirements under various past and present regulatory programs such as the OECD High Production Volume Programme as well as the EU's Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of CHemicals (REACH) regulation. Although read-across raises a number of expectations, many misconceptions still remain around what it truly represents; how to address its associated justification in a robust and scientifically credible manner; what challenges/issues exist in terms of its application and acceptance; and what future efforts are needed to resolve them. In terms of future enhancements, read-across is likely to embrace more biologically-orientated approaches consistent with the Toxicity in the 21st Century vision (Tox-21c). This Food for Thought article, which is notably not a consensus report, aims to discuss a number of these aspects and, in doing so, to raise awareness of the ongoing efforts and activities to enhance read-across. It also intends to set the agenda for a CAAT read-across initiative in 2014-2015 to facilitate the proper use of this technique.


Patlewicz G.,DuPont Company | Simon T.W.,Ted Simon LLC | Rowlands J.C.,Dow Chemical Company | Budinsky R.A.,Dow Chemical Company | Becker R.A.,American Chemistry Council ACC
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology | Year: 2015

An adverse outcome pathway (AOP) describes the causal linkage between initial molecular events and an adverse outcome at individual or population levels. Whilst there has been considerable momentum in AOP development, far less attention has been paid to how AOPs might be practically applied for different regulatory purposes. This paper proposes a scientific confidence framework (SCF) for evaluating and applying a given AOP for different regulatory purposes ranging from prioritizing chemicals for further evaluation, to hazard prediction, and ultimately, risk assessment. The framework is illustrated using three different AOPs for several typical regulatory applications. The AOPs chosen are ones that have been recently developed and/or published, namely those for estrogenic effects, skin sensitisation, and rodent liver tumor promotion. The examples confirm how critical the data-richness of an AOP is for driving its practical application. In terms of performing risk assessment, human dosimetry methods are necessary to inform meaningful comparisons with human exposures; dosimetry is applied to effect levels based on non-testing approaches and in vitro data. Such a comparison is presented in the form of an exposure:activity ratio (EAR) to interpret biological activity in the context of exposure and to provide a basis for product stewardship and regulatory decision making. © 2015 The Authors.


PubMed | American Chemistry Council ACC, DuPont Company, Ted Simon LLC and Dow Chemical Company
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP | Year: 2015

An adverse outcome pathway (AOP) describes the causal linkage between initial molecular events and an adverse outcome at individual or population levels. Whilst there has been considerable momentum in AOP development, far less attention has been paid to how AOPs might be practically applied for different regulatory purposes. This paper proposes a scientific confidence framework (SCF) for evaluating and applying a given AOP for different regulatory purposes ranging from prioritizing chemicals for further evaluation, to hazard prediction, and ultimately, risk assessment. The framework is illustrated using three different AOPs for several typical regulatory applications. The AOPs chosen are ones that have been recently developed and/or published, namely those for estrogenic effects, skin sensitisation, and rodent liver tumor promotion. The examples confirm how critical the data-richness of an AOP is for driving its practical application. In terms of performing risk assessment, human dosimetry methods are necessary to inform meaningful comparisons with human exposures; dosimetry is applied to effect levels based on non-testing approaches and in vitro data. Such a comparison is presented in the form of an exposure:activity ratio (EAR) to interpret biological activity in the context of exposure and to provide a basis for product stewardship and regulatory decision making.


Cox L.A.,Cox Associates | Popken D.,Cox Associates | Marty M.S.,Dow Chemical Company | Rowlands J.C.,Dow Chemical Company | And 3 more authors.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology | Year: 2014

High throughput (HTS) and high content (HCS) screening methods show great promise in changing how hazard and risk assessments are undertaken, but scientific confidence in such methods and associated prediction models needs to be established prior to regulatory use. Using a case study of HTS-derived models for predicting in vivo androgen (A), estrogen (E), thyroid (T) and steroidogenesis (S) endpoints in endocrine screening assays, we compare classification (fitting) models to cross validation (prediction) models. The more robust cross validation models (based on a set of endocrine ToxCast™ assays and guideline in vivo endocrine screening studies) have balanced accuracies from 79% to 85% for A and E, but only 23% to 50% for T and S. Thus, for E and A, HTS results appear promising for initial use in setting priorities for endocrine screening. However, continued research is needed to expand the domain of applicability and to develop more robust HTS/HCS-based prediction models prior to their use in other regulatory applications. Based on the lessons learned, we propose a framework for documenting scientific confidence in HTS assays and the prediction models derived therefrom. The documentation, transparency and the scientific rigor involved in addressing the elements in the proposed Scientific Confidence Framework could aid in discussions and decisions about the prediction accuracy needed for different applications. © 2014 The Authors.


Patlewicz G.,DuPont Company | Ball N.,Dow Chemical Company | Boogaard P.J.,Royal Dutch Shell | Becker R.A.,American Chemistry Council ACC | Hubesch B.,CEFIC The European Chemical Industry Council
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology | Year: 2015

Read-across is an alternative approach exploited to address information requirements for risk assessment and for regulatory programmes such as the European Union's REACH regulation. Whilst read-across approaches are accepted in principle, difficulties still remain in applying them consistently in practice. Recent work within Cefic LRI and ECETOC attempted to summarize the state-of-the-art and identify some of the barriers to broader acceptance of read-across approaches to overcome these. Acceptance is undoubtedly thwarted partly by the lack of a systematic framework to characterize the read-across justification and identify the uncertainties particularly for complex regulatory endpoints such as repeated-dose toxicity or prenatal developmental toxicity. Efforts are underway by the European Chemical's Agency (ECHA) to develop a Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) and private sector experts have also considered the development of a similar framework. At the same time, mechanistic chemical categories are being proposed which are underpinned by Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs). Currently such frameworks are only focusing on discrete organic substances, though the AOP approach could conceivably be applied to evaluate more complex substances such as mixtures. Here we summarize the deliberations of the Cefic LRI read-across team in characterizing scientific confidence in the development and evaluation of read-across. © 2015 Elsevier Inc.


PubMed | Royal Dutch Shell, CEFIC The European Chemical Industry Council, DuPont Company, American Chemistry Council ACC and Dow Chemical Company
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP | Year: 2015

Read-across is an alternative approach exploited to address information requirements for risk assessment and for regulatory programmes such as the European Unions REACH regulation. Whilst read-across approaches are accepted in principle, difficulties still remain in applying them consistently in practice. Recent work within Cefic LRI and ECETOC attempted to summarize the state-of-the-art and identify some of the barriers to broader acceptance of read-across approaches to overcome these. Acceptance is undoubtedly thwarted partly by the lack of a systematic framework to characterize the read-across justification and identify the uncertainties particularly for complex regulatory endpoints such as repeated-dose toxicity or prenatal developmental toxicity. Efforts are underway by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to develop a Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) and private sector experts have also considered the development of a similar framework. At the same time, mechanistic chemical categories are being proposed which are underpinned by Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs). Currently such frameworks are only focusing on discrete organic substances, though the AOP approach could conceivably be applied to evaluate more complex substances such as mixtures. Here we summarize the deliberations of the Cefic LRI read-across team in characterizing scientific confidence in the development and evaluation of read-across.


Russell S.,American Chemistry Council ACC
Plastics Engineering | Year: 2015

ACC and plastics makers are focused on the 4 r's, reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover. Because of favorable strength-to-weight ratios, we can package more goods in plastics using less material. And consumer product companies are continually striving to make bottles and packaging lighter and thinner and finding innovative ways to reduce the amount of packaging for shipping and selling food and other goods. Automakers are increasingly turning to lightweight, tough plastics to help them reduce the weight of cars to improve fuel efficiency and meet CAF? standards. Many brand owners are moving toward refillable products and concentrates that allow consumers to buy more product with less package, and consumers today have more opportunities to choose reusable packaging such as grocery bags, food containers, and beverage bottles. There are promising new technologies that can turn plastics into fuels and other valuable materials, which can provide a source of readily available domestic energy. Researchers have found that diverting all non-recycled municipal solid waste from landfills to waste-to-energy facilities could produce enough electricity to power nearly 14 million homes.

Loading American Chemistry Council ACC collaborators
Loading American Chemistry Council ACC collaborators