Search

Developmental neurotoxicity testing (DNT) is perceived by many stakeholders to be an area in critical need of alternatives to current animal testing protocols and guidelines. To address this need, the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Toxicology Program are collaborating in a program called TestSmart DNT, the goals of which are to: (a) develop alternative methodologies for identifying and prioritizing chemicals and exposures that may cause developmental neurotoxicity in humans; (b) develop the policies for incorporating DNT alternatives into regulatory decision making; and (c) identify opportunities for reducing, refining, or replacing the use of animals in DNT. The first TestSmart DNT workshop was an open registration meeting held 13-15 March 2006 in Reston, Virginia. The primary objective was to bring together stakeholders (test developers, test users, regulators, and advocates for children's health, animal welfare, and environmental health) and individuals representing diverse disciplines (developmental neurobiology, toxicology, policy, and regulatory science) from around the world to share information and concerns relating to the science and policy of DNT. Individual presentations are available at the CAAT TestSmart website. This report provides a synthesis of workgroup discussions and recommendations for future directions and priorities, which include initiating a systematic evaluation of alternative models and technologies, developing a framework for the creation of an open database to catalog DNT data, and devising a strategy for harmonizing the validation process across international jurisdictional borders.

The article discusses a study that applies the one health approach to show and address the issue of housing instability in Baltimore, Maryland, and extends the public health concept by connecting animal welfare and human health. It examines the hypothesis that people living in low income and vulnerable communities, who are at a high risk for housing loss through eviction, seek to surrender their pets before being evicted. It describes strategies to alleviate financial stress related to pets.

Scientists are usually good at teaching, sometimes even to lay audiences. But communicating with journalists, activists, or policymakers can be a different story - hesitancy to make mistakes as well as the temptation to disproportionally promote one's own case come into play. The multitude of social media and other web-based outlets has diversified and accelerated the communication of science. Real-time reactions, sharing of data, tools and results, increasing invitation of personal opinion, demand for transparency, political correctness, and loss of trust in experts are challenges to researchers in general. The field of alternatives to animal testing is more political and important to lay audiences than many others, so its scientists must be especially aware of these challenges. Public engagement offers the opportunity to form community and create wide support for non-animal research and its implementation. This requires scientists to step out of the ivory tower of higher education and engage with diverse interest groups by outreach activities, interviews, and press releases, etc. by employing tailored communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer worldwide. Most indoor exposure occurs by diffusion of soil gas. Radon is also found in well water, natural gas, and ambient air. Pennsylvania has high indoor radon concentrations; buildings are often tested during real estate transactions, with results reported to the Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). OBJECTIVES: We evaluated predictors of indoor radon concentrations. METHODS: Using first-floor and basement indoor radon results reported to the PADEP between 1987 and 2013, we evaluated associations of radon concentrations (natural log transformed) with geology, water source, building characteristics, season, weather, community socioeconomic status, community type, and unconventional natural gas development measures based on drilled and producing wells. RESULTS: Primary analysis included 866,735 first measurements by building, with the large majority from homes. The geologic rock layer on which the building sat was strongly associated with radon concentration (e.g., Axemann Formation, median = 365 Bq/[m.sup.3], IQR = 167-679 vs. Stockton Formation, median = 93 Bq/[m.sup.3], IQR = 52-178). In adjusted analysis, buildings using well water had 21% higher concentrations (β = 0.191, 95% CI: 0.184, 0.198). Buildings in cities (vs. townships) had lower concentrations (p = -0.323, 95% CI: -0.333, -0.314). When we included multiple tests per building, concentrations declined with repeated measurements over time. Between 2005 and 2013, 7,469 unconventional wells were drilled in Pennsylvania. Basement radon concentrations fluctuated between 1987 and 2003, but began an upward trend from 2004 to 2012 in all county categories (p < 0.001), with higher levels in counties having ≥ 100 drilled wells versus counties with none, and with highest levels in the Reading Prong. CONCLUSIONS: Geologic unit, well water, community, weather, and unconventional natural gas development were associated with indoor radon concentrations. Future studies should include direct environmental measurement of radon, as well as building features unavailable for this analysis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409014, Introduction Exposure to radon-222--an inert, odorless, and carcinogenic gas--is the second leading cause of lung cancer worldwide (Darby et al. 2005; Pawel and Puskin 2004). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [...]

The article focuses on how the toxicity testing reform for U.S. chemicals laws fits into the legal and policy landscape. It informs that the U.S. federal system that controls the use of chemicals consist of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and their regulations. It mentions that many evolutionary changes in toxicology provide for regulatory revolution for evaluating chemical hazards for chemicals.

Systemic toxicity testing forms the cornerstone for the safety evaluation of substances. Pressures to move from traditional animal models to novel technologies arise from various concerns, including: the need to evaluate large numbers of previously untested chemicals and new products (such as nanoparticles or cell therapies), the limited predictivity of traditional tests for human health effects, duration and costs of current approaches, and animal welfare considerations. The latter holds especially true in the context of the scheduled 2013 marketing ban on cosmetic ingredients tested for systemic toxicity. Based on a major analysis of the status of alternative methods (Adler et al., 2011) and its independent review (Hartung et al., 2011), the present report proposes a roadmap for how to overcome the acknowledged scientific gaps for the full replacement of systemic toxicity testing using animals. Five whitepapers were commissioned addressing toxicokinetics, skin sensitization, repeated-dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity testing. An expert workshop of 35 participants from Europe and the US discussed and refined these whitepapers, which were subsequently compiled to form the present report. By prioritizing the many options to move the field forward, the expert group hopes to advance regulatory science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]