Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42369436›Full record

ArticleNAM journal2025

Balancing chemical safety and animal welfare considerations in the application of new approach methodologies for chemical safety assessment.

Aleksandra Čavoški, Laura Holden, Leonie Mueller, Robert Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NAM journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Aleksandra ČavoškiBirmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Laura HoldenBirmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Leonie MuellerAltertox, Alphonse de Witte 11, 1050 Ixelles, Belgium.
Robert LeeBirmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite some considerable advancement in developing different forms of new approach methodologies (NAMs) to assess the risk of chemicals, there is still limited progress in their application for regulatory purposes in the European Union (EU). Distinct divisions exist between non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with an animal welfare agenda, and those focusing on environmental protection. The conflicting views on NAMs held by these NGOs are a point of concern for policy makers in particular. This report gathers and reviews the perspectives of selected animal welfare and environmental NGO representatives who responded to our small-scale, anonymous online survey. The responses were analysed to identify areas where there is some space to accommodate the views of both groups. There exists strong consensus on the question of whether EU chemical legislation on risk assessment is sufficiently well adapted to incorporate new approach methodologies. Both NGO groups do acknowledge the merit of scientific advances to aid decision making, albeit with the cautious need to ensure that the information to truly determine the safe use of chemicals is available. Broad consensus was identified: i) for the need of a more precise definition of NAMs by making reference to using NAMs in specific contexts; ii) acknowledging that existing processes are not adequate to validate new approach methodologies; and iii) that there remain clear barriers to the regulatory deployment of NAMs. Finally, moderate consensus was identified for the question of whether animals are an effective and appropriate surrogate to assess the impact chemicals have on environmental health, with both groups acknowledging, to an extent, that animal tests in this context can be useful indicators and NAMs could assist in identifying further effects in complex systems. Understanding these areas of common ground will benefit future policy decision-making related to the acceptance of NAMs in chemical safety assessments.

Indexed as

ConsensusNAMsNGOs

Identifiers

PMID42369436
PMCPMC13289033

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.