Ian C Dewhurst

Health and Safety Executive, Liverpool, England, United Kingdom

Are you Ian C Dewhurst?

Claim your profile

Publications (2)12.51 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assessment of the acute systemic oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicities, skin and eye irritancy, and skin sensitisation potential of chemicals is required under regulatory schemes worldwide. In vivo studies conducted to assess these endpoints can sometimes be associated with substantial adverse effects in the test animals, and their use should always be scientifically justified. It has been argued that while information obtained from such acute tests provides data needed to meet classification and labelling regulations, it is of limited value for hazard and risk assessments. Inconsistent application of in vitro replacements, protocol requirements across regions, and bridging principles also contribute to unnecessary and redundant animal testing. Assessment of data from acute oral and dermal toxicity testing demonstrates that acute dermal testing rarely provides value for hazard assessment purposes when an acute oral study has been conducted. Options to waive requirements for acute oral and inhalation toxicity testing should be employed to avoid unnecessary in vivo studies. In vitro irritation models should receive wider adoption and be used to meet regulatory needs. Global requirements for sensitisation testing need continued harmonisation for both substance and mixture assessments. This paper highlights where alternative approaches or elimination of tests can reduce and refine animal use for acute toxicity requirements.
    Critical Reviews in Toxicology 01/2010; 40(1):50-83. · 6.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Regulatory tests investigating pesticide carcinogenicity potential routinely comprise a battery of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity studies and two cancer bioassays, one in rats and one in mice. The genotoxicity testing strategy essentially ensures that genotoxic compounds are eliminated, and any carcinogens identified in subsequent lifetime studies are probably nongenotoxic in character. Assessment of 202 pesticide evaluations from the European Union review programme under Directive 91/414/EEC indicated that the mouse carcinogenicity study contributed little or nothing to either derivation of an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for assessment of chronic risk to humans, or hazard classification for labelling purposes. From a pesticide approval perspective, the mouse study did not influence a single outcome. From a risk assessment perspective, the ADI for just one pesticide was based on tumours in mice and this would have barely changed if the mouse data had not been available. In total, only 10 (5%) pesticide ADIs were based solely on the mouse carcinogenicity study and even in these few cases, a similar value would have been identified from other studies if the mouse study had not been available. For pesticides with treatment-related tumours only in mice, just three, or 1.5%, were classified as carcinogens and all were in the lowest category, Category 3 (R40). For pesticides with treatment-related tumours in mice and rats, the mouse data were probably the main, if not the only, cause for another three cases of R40 classification. Absence of the mouse studies would not have influenced assignment of the higher, Category 2 (R45), cancer classification for any substance with treatment-related tumours in both species as all decisions for these substances were limited to Category 3 or 'unclassified' outcomes. Over 100,000 mice were used to test these pesticides. This review shows that the mouse carcinogenicity studies did not provide significant information over and above that provided by the rat studies, and underpins the opportunity, from both a scientific and an animal welfare perspective, to remove the mouse carcinogenicity study from regulatory data requirements for the testing of pesticides.
    Critical Reviews in Toxicology 01/2010; 40(1):35-49. · 6.25 Impact Factor