ArticleArchives of toxicology2026
The way forward for assessing the human health safety of cosmetics in the EU: Proceedings of Workshop 2.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The NAMs conundrum in the current regulatory risk assessment: progress without clarity?Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- New approach methodologies for next-generation risk assessment of nanomaterials and nano-enabled products.Nano convergence · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Under the European Cosmetic Regulation, safety assessments of cosmetics and their ingredients must be conducted without the use of animals. This regulatory requirement poses a number of challenges, as validated alternative methods are only available for some of the toxicological endpoints that are typically considered in standard human health risk assessments. Despite significant progress since the ban in 2013, particularly in the development of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) for local and acute toxicity, and for mutagenicity/genotoxicity, there remains an urgent need for non-animal test methods to assess systemic toxicity, which often becomes evident after repeated or long-term exposure. Currently, no validated animal-free alternatives are available for assessing sub-acute, sub-chronic and chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, developmental/reproductive toxicity, or for a major part of toxicokinetics. In response to these challenges, the Methodology Working Group of the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety organised a dedicated workshop in December 2024 to discuss advances in the application of Next Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA) as a strategic animal-free approach for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients. The workshop focused on a number of important key issues for the practical application of NAMs and NGRA, their regulatory acceptance and identification of possible (partial) solutions to overcome existing limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.