Next generation risk assessment (NGRA) aims to enable transparent, reproducible chemical safety assessments based on human-relevant, animal-free new approach methodologies (NAMs). The Alternative Safety Profiling Algorithm (ASPA) was developed within the ASPIS cluster to provide an algorithmic workflow that structures problem formulation, evidence integration, and decision-making across three main pillars – hazard, ADME (toxicokinetics), and exposure. A stakeholder workshop was organized to refine ASPA. Four breakout groups systematically reviewed corresponding workflow sections, identifying strengths, conceptual gaps, and opportunities for harmonization. Across groups, participants endorsed ASPA’s modular, technology-neutral nature and its focus on standardizing processes rather than prescribing specific test batteries. The hazard pillar discussions emphasized a sensitive, hypothesis-generating Tier 1, complemented by a specific, mechanistic Tier 2, capable of deriving points of departure (PoDs). ADME experts supported a physiologically based kinetic (PBK) modelling strategy, advancing from generic towards more complex models, using mechanistic information and experimental data. The exposure group proposed refinements for transparent, tiered exposure modelling, with emphasis on realistic worst-case scenarios and explicit uncertainty communication. Cross-pillar discussions highlighted the importance of feedback loops among all pillars, and the documentation of decision points to achieve consistency and defensi­bility. The workshop outcomes informed three parallel developments: (i) algorithmic refinement and re-design toward the next ASPA version, (ii) the creation of detailed guidance for each building block, and (iii) the establishment of practical case studies to demonstrate workflow implementation. This report already contains a first case study (developmental neurotoxicity assessment of desnitro-imidacloprid). These advances increase the operability, transparency, and regulatory readiness of ASPA.

This report summarises the main findings and discussion from the European Commission (EC) workshop on "The Roadmap Towards Phasing Out Animal Testing for Chemical Safety Assessments" which was held in Brussels on 11-12 December 2023. The aim of the workshop was to gather ideas and opinions from individuals, organisations and institutions, and to discuss potential approaches for incorporating non-animal methods into chemical legislation with all interested stakeholders. The roadmap will be an EC policy document which will outline milestones and specific actions, addressing all relevant pieces of chemical legislation relating to safety assessment. It intends to describe the necessary steps to replace animal testing in pieces of legislation where it is currently required for chemical safety assessments. The roadmap will outline the path to expand and accelerate the development, validation and implementation of non-animal methods as well as means to facilitate their uptake across legislation. The workshop included presentations from a wide variety of stakeholders. The contributors provided examples of how non-animal methods could be applied to replace, reduce or refine animal testing in the assessment of human health and environmental effects. Furthermore, possible guiding principles for establishing a Next-Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA) in European chemicals legislation were also discussed. The workshop provided the basis for further discussion and for structuring the roadmap work.

Environmental Safety Assessments (ESA) are mandatory for several regulatory purposes and are an important component of stewardship/sustainability initiatives. Fish testing is used for assessing chemical toxicity and bioaccumulation potential; amphibians are included in some jurisdictions and their use is increasing to assess endocrine disruption. Alternative methods are becoming more available, covering the principles of the 3Rs (i.e., replacing, reducing and refining animal tests), but their regulatory incorporation is still limited. A cross-sector review by the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA), discussed the status and priorities for accelerating the adoption of non-animal approaches in ESA. The lack of an internationally agreed definition for "animal testing" was recognized as a challenge. For example, testing with vertebrate embryos up to specific developmental stages is a suitable refinement alternative only in some jurisdictions. Invertebrate testing offers refinement alternatives to develop tiered approaches using vertebrate testing as a last resort. Aquatic ESA was identified as a common need by all sectors and regulatory areas, while terrestrial ESA is particularly relevant for agrochemicals. The standardization and validation of some alternative methods as OECD test guidelines (TGs) for fish acute toxicity and fish bioaccumulation have not yet triggered the expected replacement in regulatory settings. Priority actions in these areas are needed to generate confidence in the regulatory use of the available OECD TGs designed as alternatives, including the identification of applicability domains and guidance/decision-trees for integrating different lines of evidence. Case studies under the OECD Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) program could facilitate further global regulatory uptake. Replacement of fish chronic toxicity testing is more complex and less advanced. A dual approach was suggested, in the short-term, exploring lines of evidence that, alone or in combination, could identify when further fish testing is not needed. The second phase should focus on the application of the 3Rs in those cases where chronic information is needed. Another area of increasing interest is endocrine disruption. It represents a challenge but also an opportunity for implementing mechanistic non-animal methods, in addition to integrate human and ESA. This requires a step-by-step approach with continuous dialogue to ensure that technical developments will address regulatory needs. The review also agreed that the long-term aspiration is a new ESA paradigm, mapping the protection goals and providing connectivity between the chemical legislation and environmental protection policies.

The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) held the "New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) User Forum Kick-Off Workshop", at the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Helsinki, Finland on 7-8 December 2023. The aim of the User Forum was to gain insight into the regulatory use of NAMs, with a particular reference to Next Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA), for chemical safety assessment. To achieve this, presentations summarised the learnings and experiences of previous EPAA Skin Sensitisation User Forums as well as that of the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). The findings of five case studies were summarised that illustrated the use of NAMs. The presentations and subsequent discussions allowed for learnings and insights to be compiled from all stakeholders with regard to the use of NAMs. Recommendations for the regulatory use of NAMs in NGRA were made, namely for exposure assessment; hazard identification; using tiered and targeted testing strategies; performing risk assessment using NAM data; the practical implementation of NAMs; the use of -omics technologies; and the needs for capacity building and training. The EPAA User Forum provided an open platform for safety assessors to share learnings and experiences. Recommendations for the format and topics of future EPAA User Forums were also made.

The rabbit pyrogen test (RPT) was the benchmark for pyrogenicity testing, but scientific advancements have provided innovative and humane methods, such as the in vitro monocyte-activation test (MAT). However, transitioning from the RPT to the MAT has been challenging. The European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare, the Council of Europe, and the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing jointly hosted an international conference entitled "The future of pyrogenicity testing: phasing out the rabbit pyrogen test". The conference aimed to show how the European Pharmacopoeia intends to remove the RPT from its texts by 2026, facilitate the use of MAT, and identify gaps in the suppression of RPT. The events contributed to a better understanding of the barriers to RPT replacement and acceptance of in vitro alternatives. Participants comprised stakeholders from Asia, Europe, and North America, including vaccine developers, contract laboratories, and regulators. Participants shared their replacement strategies and experiences with MAT implementation. They emphasised the need for continued cooperation between stakeholders and stressed the importance of international harmonisation of regulatory requirements to help accelerate MAT acceptance outside Europe. Despite the challenges, the willingness to eliminate the unnecessary use of RPT was common across all participants.

Assessment of reversibility from nonclinical toxicity findings in animals with potential adverse clinical impact is required during pharmaceutical development, but there is flexibility around how and when this is performed and if recovery animals are necessary. For monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and in accordance with ICH S6(R1) if inclusion of recovery animals is warranted, this need only occur in one study. Data on study designs for first-in-human (FIH)-enabling and later-development toxicity studies were shared from a recent collaboration between the NC3Rs, EPAA, Netherlands Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and 14 pharmaceutical companies. This enabled a review of practices on recovery animal use during mAb development and identification of opportunities to reduce research animal use. Recovery animals were included in 68% of FIH-enabling and 69% of later-development studies, often in multiple studies in the same program. Recovery groups were commonly in control plus one test article-dosed group or in all dose groups (45% of studies, each design). Based on the shared data review and conclusions, limiting inclusion of recovery to a single nonclinical toxicology study and species, study design optimisation and use of existing knowledge instead of additional recovery groups provide opportunities to further reduce animal use within mAb development programs.

To support registration of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for chronic indications, 6-month toxicity studies have historically been conducted. Experience with mAb development has shown a relatively benign and well-understood safety profile for this class, with most toxicity findings anticipated based on pharmacology. We evaluated whether a 6-month toxicity study is necessary to assess the long-term safety of mAbs. Data on First-in-Human (FIH)-enabling and chronic toxicity studies were shared for 142 mAbs submitted by 11 companies. Opportunities to further optimize study designs to reduce animal usage were identified. For 71% of mAbs, no toxicities or no new toxicities were noted in chronic studies compared to FIH-enabling study findings. New toxicities of potential concern for human safety or that changed trial design were identified in 13.5% of cases, with 7% being considered critical and 2% leading to program termination. An iterative, weight-of-evidence model which considers factors that influence the overall risk for a mAb to cause toxicity was developed. This model enables an evidence-based justification, suggesting when 3-month toxicity studies are likely sufficient to support late-stage clinical development and registration for some mAbs.

Different government agencies operating in the European Union regulate different types of chemical products but all require testing for carcinogenicity to support applications for product marketing and commercialisation. A conference was held in Brussels in 2013 where representatives of the pharmaceutical, animal health, chemical and plant protection industries, together with representatives of regulatory agencies, universities and other stakeholders, met under the auspices of The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) to discuss the varying requirements for carcinogenicity testing, and how these studies might be refined to improve hazard evaluation and risk assessment while implementing principles of the 3Rs (replacement, refinement and reduction in animal studies). While there are some similarities, the regulatory approaches in pharmaceutical, animal health, chemical and plant protection sectors have varying degrees of flexibility in requirements for carcinogenicity testing, to an extent reflecting concerns over the magnitude and duration of human exposure, either directly as in therapeutic exposure to pharmaceuticals, or indirectly through the ingestion of residues of veterinary drugs or plant protection chemicals. The article discusses these differences and other considerations for modified carcinogenicity testing paradigms on the basis of scientific and 3Rs approaches.

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are considered to include any in vitro, in silico or chemistry-based method, as well as the strategies to implement them, that may provide information that could inform chemical safety assessment. Current chemical legislation in the European Union is limited in its acceptance of the widespread use of NAMs. The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) therefore convened a 'Deep Dive Workshop' to explore the use of NAMs in chemical safety assessment, the aim of which was to support regulatory decisions, whilst intending to protect human health. The workshop recognised that NAMs are currently used in many industrial sectors, with some considered as fit for regulatory purpose. Moreover, the workshop identified key discussion points that can be addressed to increase the use and regulatory acceptance of NAMs. These are based on the changes needed in frameworks for regulatory requirements and the essential needs in education, training and greater stakeholder engagement as well the gaps in the scientific basis of NAMs.

Currently the only methods for non-genotoxic carcinogenic hazard assessment accepted by most regulatory authorities are lifetime carcinogenicity studies. However, these involve the use of large numbers of animals and the relevance of their predictive power and results has been scientifically challenged. With increased availability of innovative test methods and enhanced understanding of carcinogenic processes, it is believed that tumour formation can now be better predicted using mechanistic information. A workshop organised by the European Partnership on Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing brought together experts to discuss an alternative, mechanism-based approach for cancer risk assessment of agrochemicals. Data from a toolbox of test methods for detecting modes of action (MOAs) underlying non-genotoxic carcinogenicity are combined with information from subchronic toxicity studies in a weight-of-evidence approach to identify carcinogenic potential of a test substance. The workshop included interactive sessions to discuss the approach using case studies. These showed that fine-tuning is needed, to build confidence in the proposed approach, to ensure scientific correctness, and to address different regulatory needs. This novel approach was considered realistic, and its regulatory acceptance and implementation can be facilitated in the coming years through continued dialogue between all stakeholders and building confidence in alternative approaches.

Background: Methods and approaches that can be used in food and nutrition research are changing at a faster pace than ever. Whereas animal methods are mostly known for their use in food safety analysis (see Part I), they also play in important role in proof-of-concept and mechanistic studies of products, as well as studying potency, efficacy, and tolerance of foods and food ingredients. Members of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Europe have formed an expert group to review possibilities, opportunities, and challenges for the potential use of alternative testing strategies in nutrition research and regulatory requirements, supporting the 3Rs principle of Replacement, Reduction, Refinement of animal research, which can ultimately be used in support of regulatory submissions for pre-market authorisation. Scope and approach: For the different areas of food for specific groups and health claims, the acceptability of nonanimal approaches is evaluated in comparison to legislative requirements in Europe. The alternative approaches considered cover emerging tools and methodologies such as organoids, organs-on-a-chip or human in vitro gastrointestinal simulators. Conclusions: In nutrition research, there has been a long tradition of following a certain experimental trajectory for grounding scientific hypotheses starting from in vitro data moving on to in vivo verification in a preferred animal model and finally proving this in a human setting. From a regulatory perspective there is no specific requirement for animal experimentation that justifies the use of the majority of animal experiments in the assessment of nutritional content and value of food products. However, animal data are mostly considered as the standard, and guidance for alternative approaches that would be accepted is lacking. It is therefore important to further build evidence and offer validation for the adequacy of already existing in vitro tools to ensure their suitability for substantiating dose levels and further planning clinical trials. What are we waiting for?

The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) convened a Partners' Forum on repeated dose toxicity (RDT) testing to identify synergies between industrial sectors and stakeholders along with opportunities to progress these in existing research frameworks. Although RTD testing is not performed across all industrial sectors, the OECD accepted tests can provide a rich source of information and play a pivotal role for safety decisions relating to the use of chemicals. Currently there are no validated alternatives to repeated dose testing and a direct one-to-one replacement is not appropriate. However, there are many projects and initiatives at the international level which aim to implement various aspects of replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs) in RDT testing. Improved definition of use, through better problem formulation, aligned to harmonisation of regulations is a key area, as is the more rapid implementation of alternatives into the legislative framework. Existing test designs can be optimised to reduce animal use and increase information content. Greater use of exposure-led decisions and improvements in dose selection will be beneficial. In addition, EPAA facilitates sharing of case studies demonstrating the use of Next Generation Risk Assessment applying various New Approach Methodologies to assess RDT.

EU regulations call for the use of alternative methods to animal testing. During the last decade, an increasing number of alternative approaches have been formally adopted. In parallel, new 3Rs-relevant technologies and mechanistic approaches have increasingly contributed to hazard identification and risk assessment evolution. In this changing landscape, an EPAA meeting reviewed the challenges that different industry sectors face in the implementation of alternative methods following a science-driven approach. Although clear progress was acknowledged in animal testing reduction and refinement thanks to an integration of scientifically robust approaches, the following challenges were identified: i) further characterization of toxicity pathways; ii) development of assays covering current scientific gaps, iii) better characterization of links between in vitro readouts and outcome in the target species; iv) better definition of alternative method applicability domains, and v) appropriate implementation of the available approaches. For areas having regulatory adopted alternative methods (e.g., vaccine batch testing), harmonised acceptance across geographical regions was considered critical for broader application. Overall, the main constraints to the application of non-animal alternatives are the still existing gaps in scientific knowledge and technological limitations. The science-driven identification of most appropriate methods is key for furthering a multi-sectorial decrease in animal testing.

The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) convened a Partners' Forum Toxicokinetics and Read-Across to provide an overview on research activities to develop in vitro toxicokinetics methods and physiologically-based kinetic (PBK) models and to find synergies to enhance use of toxicokinetic data to strengthen read-across. Currently, lacking toxicokinetic data often prevent the application of read-across. Preferably, toxicokinetic data should be generated using in vitro and in silico tools and anchored towards human relevance. In certain sectors, PBK modelling is being used for risk assessment, but less so in others. Specific activities were identified to facilitate the use of in vitro and in silico toxicokinetic data to support read-across: The collation of available tools indicating the parameters and applicability domains covered; endpoint-specific guidance on toxicokinetics parameters required for read-across; case studies exemplifying how toxicokinetic data help support read-across. Activities to enhance the scientific robustness of read-across include the further user-friendly combination of read-across tools and formal guidance by the authorities specifying the minimum information requirements to justify read-across for a given toxicity endpoint. The EPAA was invited to continue dissemination activities and to explore possibilities to collate a contemporaneous list of open toxicokinetics tools that assist risk assessment.

This article summarizes the outcome of an international workshop organized by the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) on Modern science for better quality control of medicinal products: Towards global harmonization of 3Rs in biologicals. As regards the safety testing of biologicals, the workshop participants agreed to actively encourage the deletion of abnormal toxicity tests and target animal batch safety tests from all relevant legal requirements and guidance documents (country-specific guidelines, pharmacopoeia monographs, WHO recommendations). To facilitate the global regulatory acceptance of non-animal methods for the potency testing of, e.g., human diphtheria and tetanus vaccines and veterinary swine erysipelas vaccines, international convergence on the scientific principles of the use of appropriately validated in vitro assays for replacing in vivo methods was identified as an overarching goal. The establishment of scientific requirements for new assays was recognized as a further means to unify regulatory approaches in different jurisdictions. It was recommended to include key regulators and manufacturers early in the corresponding discussions. Manufacturers and responsible expert groups, e.g. at the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Health Care of the Council of Europe or the European Medicines Agency, were invited to consider leadership for international collaboration.

Decades of costly failures in translating drug candidates from preclinical disease models to human therapeutic use warrant reconsideration of the priority placed on animal models in biomedical research. Following an international workshop attended by experts from academia, government institutions, research funding bodies, and the corporate and non -governmental organisation (NGO) sectors, in this consensus report, we analyse, as case studies, five disease areas with major unmet needs for new treatments. In view of the scientifically driven transition towards a human pathways-based paradigm in toxicology, a similar paradigm shift appears to be justified in biomedical research. There is a pressing need for an approach that strategically implements advanced, human biology-based models and tools to understand disease pathways at multiple biological scales. We present recommendations to help achieve this.

BRAFO, Benefit-Risk Analysis for Foods, was a European Commission project funded within Framework Six as a Specific Support Action and coordinated by ILSI Europe. BRAFO developed a tiered methodology for assessing the benefits and risks of foods and food components, utilising a quantitative, common scale for health assessment in higher tiers. This manuscript reports on the implications of the experience gained during the development of the project for the further improvement of benefit-risk assessment methodology. It was concluded that the methodology proposed is applicable to a range of situations and that it does help in optimising resource utilisation through early identification of those benefit-risk questions where benefit clearly outweighs risk or vice versa. However, higher tier assessments are complex and demanding of time and resources, emphasising the need for prioritisation. Areas identified as requiring further development to improve the utility of benefit-risk assessment include health weights for different populations and endpoints where they do not currently exist, extrapolation of effects from studies in animals to humans, use of in vitro data in benefit-risk assessments, and biomarkers of early effect and how these would be used in a quantitative assessment.

The aim of the European Funded Project BRAFO (benefit-risk analysis of foods) project was to develop a framework that allows quantitative comparison of human health risks and benefits of foods based on a common scale of measurement. This publication describes the application of the BRAFO methodology to three different case studies: the formation of acrylamide in potato and cereal based products, the formation of benzo(a)pyrene through smoking and grilling of meat and fish and the heat-treatment of milk. Reference, alternative scenario and target population represented the basic structure to test the tiers of the framework. Various intervention methods intended to reduce acrylamide in potato and cereal products were evaluated against the historical production methods. In conclusion the benefits of the acrylamide-reducing measures were considered prevailing. For benzo(a)pyrene, three illustrated alternative scenarios were evaluated against the most common smoking practice. The alternative scenarios were assessed as delivering benefits, introducing only minimal potential risks. Similar considerations were made for heat treatment of milk where the comparison of the microbiological effects of heat treatment, physico-chemical changes of milk constituents with positive and negative health effects was assessed. In general, based on data available, benefits of the heat treatment were outweighing any risks.

BRAFO stands for Benefit-Risk Analysis for Foods. This European Commission funded project aims at developing a framework that allows quantitative comparison of human health risks and benefits of foods and food compounds based on a common scale of measurement. A methodology group brought together methodologies from several disciplines relevant to the evaluation of risks and benefits in food. This group reviewed and assembled the methodologies available. They produced this guidance document that describes a tiered ('stepwise') approach for performing a risk and benefit assessment of foods. This process starts with pre-assessment and problem formulation to set the scope of the assessment. This includes defining two scenarios, the reference and an alternative that are compared in the assessment. The approach consists of four tiers. In many cases, a lower tier assessment in which risks and benefits are qualitatively evaluated may be sufficient to show a clear difference between the health impacts of the two scenarios. In other cases, increasingly sophisticated methods to integrate risks and benefits quantitatively are used at higher tiers to assess the net health impact.