ECHA’s latest report shows that adaptations continue to be used more than experimental studies, with read-across being the most popular option. In vitro non-animal test methods see a significant uptake.

Helsinki, 8 June 2020 – The findings of ECHA’s fourth report on the use of alternative methods to animal testing under REACH show, in general, relatively few changes in the use of alternatives since the last report in 2017.

The most common adaptation was the use of information on similar substances (read-across, 25 %). This is followed by justifications for omitting data (data waiving), combining information from different sources (weight of evidence) and predicting properties from structurally similar substances using computer models (QSAR).

The amendment of the REACH annexes in 2016, that requires companies to use non-animal testing (in vitro, in chemico) for certain endpoints, has had a clear impact since their use has tripled for skin corrosion/irritation, quadrupled for serious eye damage/eye irritation and increased more than 20-fold for skin sensitisation.

Registrations for substances registered between 10-100 tonnes per year generally follow a similar pattern in terms of alternative methods and adaptations as those in higher tonnage bands. The exception to this is for acute toxicity, where there have been 3 % fewer experimental studies – but the use of weight of evidence, QSAR and data waiving have increased since 2017.

Read more…

Published by European Chemicals Agency