Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39361427›Full record

ArticleToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2025

A twin transition in regulatory toxicology: moving toward Chemicals 2.0 and phasing out animal testing.

Andrew P Worth, Elisabet Berggren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. CompSafeNano project: NanoInformatics approaches for safe-by-design nanomaterials.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  2. 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.

Andrew P WorthEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5303-0452
Elisabet BerggrenEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4791-4905

Funding

European Commission's Joint Research Centre
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The European regulatory framework on chemicals is at a crossroads. There are calls for the framework to be more effective, by better protecting people and the environment. There is also room for it to be more efficient and cost-effective, by harmonizing assessment practices across sectors and avoiding the need for unnecessary testing. At the same time, there is a political commitment to phase out animal testing in chemical safety assessments. In this commentary, we argue that these needs are not at odds with each other. On the contrary, the European Commission's roadmap to phase out animal testing could also be the transition pathway to a more efficient, effective, and sustainable regulatory ecosystem. Central to our proposal is a framework based on biological reasoning in which biological questions can be answered by a choice of methods, with non-animal methods progressively becoming the only choice. Within this framework, a tiered approach to testing and assessment allows for greater efficiency and effectiveness, while also introducing considerations of proportionality and cost-effectiveness. Testing strategies, and their component methods, should be developed in tandem and judged in terms of their outcomes, and the protection levels they inform, rather than their ability to predict the outputs of animal tests.

Indexed as

Animal Testing AlternativesToxicity TestsToxicologyAnimalsEuropean UnionHumansRisk Assessmentanimal testingchemical safety assessmentchemicals policynon-animal methodsrisk managementroadmap

Identifiers

PMID39361427
PMCPMC11775417

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.