EPAA review: Growing confidence and challenges in using new approach methodologies to animal testing

17 Nov 2022 --- At this year’s annual conference of the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA), key personal care and cosmetics representatives gathered to discuss the achievements and challenges in transitioning toward an animal-testing-free future, along with academics and European Commission (EC) regulatory members. PersonalCareInsights, present at the event, shares important messages and plans for the following year.

Platforms like the EPAA are essential as they promote collaboration, says Gavin Maxwell, EPAA industry co-chair and safety science advocacy lead at Unilever’s safety and environmental assurance center.

Notable participants from the cosmetics sector included CosmetoSAFE consulting, IFRA, Cosmed, Clariant, Henkel, L’Oréal, Evonik, Dow, Wacker Chemie, BSAF, IFF, Symrise, Procter & Gamble and Beiersdorf.

A “dynamic” public sentiment to move away from animal testing was highlighted by Tilly Metz, Chair of EP Animal Welfare Intergroup and member of the green party. She also noted the successful petition to ban animal testing that received 1.4 million votes this August.

On the move toward alternatives, Metz stresses that the “goal is not less testing, but efficient testing.” Additionally, a cross-sectoral approach is vital to a transition – which is why the EPAA plays a “crucial role” as regulators, NGOs and industry can come together to exchange, learn and have dialogue – as a way to progress.

Joanna Drake, deputy director-general of research and innovation at the EC, said that animal welfare is a “high priority” to the EC and that the EC is committed to phasing out animal tests by promoting the use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). She evidenced this by highlighting over 200 projects that were funded for this purpose.

Specifically, alternatives are increasingly applied for skin projects, Drake underscores.Drake shares that NAMs will be included as part of the REACH revisions next year.

Chemical and cosmetic collaboration
On the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation, Drake shares that NAMs will be included as part of the revisions for next year. This is because chemical testing will be revised next year to reduce animal testing.

Like Metz, Drake also stresses the importance of dialogue between science, regulation, policy, education and EPAA’s 3R strategy – Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animal testing.

Representing Cefic, the European chemical industry council, Marco Mensink answers why non-animal testing is necessary from a consumer perspective – companies are “stuck” to meet the consumer demands to not test on animals.

He asks the EC to be as ambitious and phase out animal tests by 2035 and says, “we will work with Cosmetics Europe to bring this forward.”

NAMs for cross-sectoral progress
Maxwell highlighted the achievements of using NAMs across sectors where skin sensitization dissemination is increasingly being used.

For the following year, he highlights ambitions to develop a roadmap focused on replacing animal testing, organizing a 2023 partners forum, a parliament workshop and a poster exhibition.EPAA’s 3R strategy – Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animal testing

Delving into the challenges to make safe cosmetics in Europe and sustainable innovation, Prof. Vera Rogiers, EPAA mirror group, says that the modernization of testing is needed without sacrificing human safety. 

Additionally, she thinks the best science combines the 3Rs. Rogiers states NAMs should not just be for cosmetics but for all fields where possible, which is possible by working closely while respecting each other’s identities. 

On this note, Dr. Sandars Pascal, a member of the European College of veterinary pharmacology and toxicology, thinks that science and policy should be in dialogue to consolidate and strengthen the research and innovation capacity for chemical risk assessment to protect human health and the environment.

NAMs poses challenges
In session two of the conference, Bob van de Water, RISK-HUNT3R (RISK assessment of chemicals integrating Human centric Next generation Testing strategies promoting the 3Rs), highlighted the need to bring the research on methodologies and scientific testing from academia into practice.

This will advance NAMS, improve certainty and trust in alternative tests, facilitate non-animal solutions and translate results into safety assessment practice.

Dr. Andrew Worth, Joint Research Center at the EC, points out that over the past 60 years, there has been regulation, but he asks, how will new methods be introduced? “Can we achieve the same goals more simply and efficiently?”

He highlights the issues raised when introducing NAMs into REACH: it is not sufficiently validated or standardized, NAMs are perceived to be less safe and more uncertain, NAMs may trigger more animal testing than reduce and NAMs may not be sufficient to meet the CLP Regulation.Maxwell highlights ambitions to develop a roadmap focused on replacing animal testing next year.

The next step, according to Worth, is that all chemicals should be evaluated according to the concerns and that animal testing should be minimized and phased out.

Non-reliability of animal testing
Dr. Carl Westmoreland, director of science and technology of safety and environmental sustainability sciences at Unilever, stressed that the best science should be used to protect people – consumers and factory workers dealing with the chemicals.

He highlights that historically, the only option for testing was animals. However, with the knowledge and science of today, there are better representatives of humans than animals, adding that rodent tests are not the best representatives. Even though they have been used successfully, they cannot predict what will happen to people.

On the other hand, NAMs should not be used to predict what will happen to humans either. Instead, it is about taking a new approach to safety. There is not a lack of tools, but a lack of experience on how to use them and making decisions on when to use them, says Westmoreland.

Therefore, he suggests building experience using NAMs and sharing and publishing educational experiences as solutions.

By Venya Patel