Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37315707›Full record

ArticleRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2023

Towards a future regulatory framework for chemicals in the European Union - Chemicals 2.0.

Elisabet Berggren, Andrew P Worth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A twin transition in regulatory toxicology: moving toward Chemicals 2.0 and phasing out animal testing.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elisabet BerggrenEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Andrew P WorthEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy. Electronic address: andrew.worth@ec.europa.eu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The body of EU chemicals legislation has evolved since the 1960s, producing the largest knowledge base on chemicals worldwide. Like any evolving system, however, it has become increasingly diverse and complex, resulting in inefficiencies and potential inconsistencies. In the light of the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, it is therefore timely and reasonable to consider how aspects of the system could be simplified and streamlined, without losing the hard-earned benefits to human health and the environment. In this commentary, we propose a conceptual framework that could be the basis of Chemicals 2.0 - a future safety assessment and management approach that is based on the application of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), mechanistic reasoning and cost-benefit considerations. Chemicals 2.0 is designed to be a more efficient and more effective approach for assessing chemicals, and to comply with the EU goal to completely replace animal testing, in line with Directive 2010/63/EU. We propose five design criteria for Chemicals 2.0 to define what the future system should achieve. The approach is centered on a classification matrix in which NAMs for toxicodynamics and toxicokinetics are used to classify chemicals according to their level of concern. An important principle is the need to ensure an equivalent, or higher, protection level.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentAnimalsEuropean UnionForecastingHumansChemical safety assessmentChemicals strategy for sustainabilityClassification & labellingCLPNew approach methodology (NAM)REACHRegulatory toxicologyRisk managementRoadmap

Identifiers

PMID37315707
PMCPMC10390824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.