Risk assessment of parabens in a transcriptomics-based in vitro test

Parabens have been used for decades as preservatives in food, drugs and cosmetics. The majority however, were banned in 2009 and 2014 leaving only methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, and butyl-derivates available for subsequent use. Methyl- and propylparaben have been extensively tested in vivo, with no resulting evidence for developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART). In contrast, ethylparaben has not yet been tested for DART in animal experiments, and it is currently debated if additional animal studies are warranted. In order to perform a comparison of the four currently approved parabens, we used a previously established in vitro test based on human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) that are exposed to test substances during their differentiation to neuroectodermal cells. EC50 values for cytotoxicity were 906 μM, 698 μM, 216 μM and 63 μM for methyl-, ethyl-, propyl- and butylparaben, respectively, demonstrating that cytotoxicity increases with increasing alkyl chain length. Genome-wide analysis demonstrated that FDR-adjusted significant gene expression changes occurred only at cytotoxic or close to cytotoxic concentrations, for example 1720 differentially expressed genes (DEG) at 1000 μM ethylparaben, 1 DEG at 316 μM, and no DEG at 100 μM or lower concentrations. The highest concentration of ethylparaben that did not induce any cytotoxicity nor DEG was 1670-fold above the highest concentration reported in biomonitoring studies (60 nM ethylparaben in cord blood). In conclusion, cytotoxicity and gene expression alterations of ethylparaben occurred at concentrations of approximately three orders of magnitude above human blood concentrations; moreover, the substance fitted well into a scenario where toxicity increases with the alkyl chain length, and gene expression changes only occur at cytotoxic or close to cytotoxic concentrations. Therefore, no evidence was obtained suggesting that in vivo DART with ethylparaben would lead to different results as the methyl- or propyl derivates.

FDA and industry collaboration: Identifying opportunities to further reduce reliance on nonhuman primates for nonclinical safety evaluations

The nonhuman primate (NHP) has always been a limited resource for pharmaceutical research with ongoing efforts to conserve. This is due to their inherent biological properties, the growth in biotherapeutics and other modalities, and their use in small molecule drug development. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has significantly impacted the availability of NHPs due to the immediate need for NHPs to develop COVID-19 vaccines and treatments and the China NHP export ban; thus, accelerating the need to further replace, reduce and refine (3Rs) NHP use. The impact of the NHP shortage on drug development led DruSafe, BioSafe, and the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) to discuss this issue at their 2021 annual meeting. This meeting identified areas to further the 3Rs in NHP use within the current nonclinical safety evaluation regulatory framework and highlighted the need to continue advancing alternative methods towards the aspirational goal to replace use of NHPs in the long term. Alignment across global health authorities is necessary for implementation of approaches that fall outside existing guidelines. This article captures the proceedings from this meeting highlighting current best practices and areas for 3Rs in NHP use.

Review of embryo-fetal developmental toxicity studies performed for pharmaceuticals approved by FDA in 2020 and 2021

103 novel drugs were approved by the FDA in 2020-2021. Embryofetal development (EFD) studies were conducted for 76% of these approvals. For the majority of drugs, EFD studies were conducted in rats and rabbits. Both species were equally sensitive to developmental toxicity, but the rabbit was slightly more sensitive to maternal toxicity at the same systemic exposure level. Nonetheless, 68% of drugs showed more than a 2-fold difference in the low adverse effect level for developmental toxicity between the rat and rabbit. Previous reviews in this series compiled information on EFD studies for all small molecule pharmaceuticals approved since 2014 and for all therapeutic monoclonal antibodies approved to date. The use of non-human primates for the developmental toxicity testing of biopharmaceuticals has fallen over recent years (22% of biologics license applications (BLAs) for 2020-2021, compared with 62% for 2002-2015), with more biopharmaceuticals now tested in rodents (37% of BLAs for 2020-2021). While the Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule (PLLR), adopted in 2014, has brought consistency to the presentation of EFD data in drug labels, prescribers complain that the pregnancy section of current drug labels is neither concise nor clear. The FDA has pledged to address the concerns of clinicians in a future revision of the PLLR rule. The recommendations on risk assessment in the recently revised ICHS5(R3) guideline could be incorporated into the PLLR rule to remove extraneous nonclinical details from the label with the aim of facilitating rapid understanding by the practitioner.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, p-tolualdehyde, CAS Registry Number 104-87-0

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. p-Tolualdehyde was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog benzaldehyde (CAS # 100-52-7) show that p-tolualdehyde is not expected to be genotoxic. Data from read-across analog cuminaldehyde (CAS # 122-03-2) provided p-tolualdehyde a No Expected Sensitization Induction Level (NESIL) of 1100 μg/cm² for the skin sensitization endpoint. The repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to p-tolualdehyde is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on data from read-across analog 4-ethylbenzaldehyde (CAS # 4748-78-1); p-tolualdehyde is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; p-tolualdehyde was found not to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) as per the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Environmental Standards, and its risk quotients, based on its current volume of use in Europe and North America (i.e., Predicted Environmental Concentration/Predicted No Effect Concentration [PEC/PNEC]), are <1.

Effects of triphenyl phosphate on ciliate protozoa Tetrahymena thermophila following acute exposure and sub-chronic exposure

Triphenyl phosphate (TPHP) is one of the most widely used organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) and is frequently detected in a variety of environmental media. Previous studies reported that TPHP had toxic effects on vertebrates, but little toxic information was available in lower trophic aquatic organisms which were more sensitive to the exposure of many toxic substances. In this study, protozoa Tetrahymena thermophila (T. thermophila) were exposed to 0, 0.01, 0.17 or 2.35 mg/L TPHP for 5 days to study the effects of sub-chronic exposure on theoretical population, cell viability, cell size and number of cilia. Additionally, the effects of TPHP on gene transcription were assessed by transcriptome sequencing technique (RNA-Seq). Cell viability and number of cilia were significantly reduced in all TPHP exposure groups compared with the control. In addition, exposure to 0.17 or 2.35 mg/L TPHP significantly reduced the theoretical population, circumference and body width, and there was a significant decrease in body length in the 2.35 mg/L exposure group. Comparative transcriptome sequencing identified a total of 4105 up- and 4487 down-regulated genes after exposure to 2.35 mg/L TPHP for 5 days compared with the control. KEGG analysis showed that dysfunction of pathways associated with ribosome, spliceosome, phagosome, proteasome and protein processing in endoplasmic reticulum in this study might be responsible for the toxicity of T. thermophila caused by TPHP. In general, the results indicated that TPHP had an adverse effect on the protozoa T. thermophila.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 1-nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,acetate, CAS Registry Number 68922-14-5

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. 1-Nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,acetate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from 1-nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,acetate and read-across analog isotridecyl acetate (CAS # 69103-23-7) show that this material is not expected to be genotoxic. Data on read-across material 3,5,5-trimethylhexyl acetate (CAS # 58430-94-7) provide a calculated MOE >100 for the repeated dose and reproductive toxicity endpoints. Based on the existing data and the additional material acetic acid, C11-14-isoalkyl esters, C13-rich (CAS # 84712-50-5), 1-nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,acetate does not present a concern for skin sensitization under the current, declared levels of use. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on data and UV spectra; 1-nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,acetate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was evaluated using the TTC for a Cramer Class I material and the exposure to 1-nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,acetate is below the TTC (1.4 mg/day). The environmental endpoints were evaluated; 1-nonanol, 2,4,6,8-tetramethyl-,acetate was found not to be PBT as per the IFRA Environmental Standards, and its risk quotients, based on its current volume of use in Europe and North America (i.e., PEC/PNEC), are <1.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, ethyl 3-methylthiopropionate, CAS Registry Number 13327-56-5

The existing information supports the use of this material as described in this safety assessment. Ethyl 3-methylthiopropionate was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, and environmental safety. Data from read-across analog methyl 3-methylthiopropionate (CAS # 13532-18-8) show that ethyl 3-methylthiopropionate is not expected to be genotoxic. The repeated dose, reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were evaluated using the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for a Cramer Class I material, and the exposure to ethyl 3-methylthiopropionate is below the TTC (0.03 mg/kg/day, 0.03 mg/kg/day, and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The skin sensitization endpoint was completed using the Dermal Sensitization Threshold (DST) for non-reactive materials (900 μg/cm²); exposure is below the DST. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoints were evaluated based on ultraviolet (UV) spectra; ethyl 3-methylthiopropionate is not expected to be phototoxic/photoallergenic. The environmental endpoints were evaluated; ethyl 3-methylthiopropionate was found not to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) as per the International Fragrance Association (IFRA) Environmental Standards, and its risk quotients, based on its current Volume of Use in Europe and North America (i.e., Predicted Environmental Concentration/Predicted No Effect Concentration [PEC/PNEC]), are <1.

Review of embryo-fetal developmental toxicity studies performed for pharmaceuticals approved by FDA in 2018 and 2019

Details of embryo-fetal development (EFD) studies were compiled for all FDA drug approvals in 2018-19. EFD studies were performed for 82 % of approvals (84 % of small molecules and 70 % of biopharmaceuticals). Rats and rabbits were used for 84 % of small molecule (SM) drugs for which EFD studies were submitted. There was at least a 2-fold difference in sensitivity between the rat and the rabbit relative to the human exposure for the majority of drugs (62 %, small molecules and biopharmaceuticals combined) tested in both species. On average, however, the rat and rabbit were equally sensitive to developmental toxicity. Over the last 2 years, the use of non-human primates (NHP) for the developmental toxicity testing of biopharmaceuticals has fallen (26 % of biologics license applications), with many more biopharmaceuticals now tested in rodents (44 % of BLAs). EFD studies were not required for oncology drugs when the mode of action was associated with known developmental risk. One-third of SM non-oncology drugs and two-thirds of SM oncology drugs induced dysmorphogenesis in at least one species. The newly revised ICH S5(R3) guideline will bring about changes to the design of future EFD studies, particularly with respect to high dose selection. The revised guideline will also influence the interpretation of the findings in EFD studies (e.g. fetal morphological variations) and risk assessment.

Value and limitation of structure-based profilers to characterize developmental and reproductive toxicity potential

The uncertainty regarding the safety of chemicals leaching from food packaging triggers attention. In silico models provide solutions for screening of these chemicals, since many are toxicologically uncharacterized. For hazard assessment, information on developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) is needed. The possibility to apply in silico toxicology to identify and quantify DART alerts was investigated. Open-source models and profilers were applied to 195 packaging chemicals and analogues. An approach based on DART and estrogen receptor (ER) binding profilers and molecular docking was able to identify all except for one chemical with documented DART properties. Twenty percent of the chemicals in the database known to be negative in experimental studies were classified as positive. The scheme was then applied to 121 untested chemicals. Alerts were identified for sixteen of them, five being packaging substances, the others structural analogues. Read-across was then developed to translate alerts into quantitative toxicological values. They can be used to calculate margins of exposure (MoE), the size of which reflects safety concern. The application of this approach appears valuable for hazard characterization of toxicologically untested packaging migrants. It is an alternative to the use of default uncertainty factor (UF) applied to animal chronic toxicity value to handle absence of DART data in hazard characterization.

Leveraging complementary computational models for prioritizing chemicals of developmental and reproductive toxicity concern: an example of food contact materials

The evaluation of developmental and reproductive toxicity of food contact materials (FCMs) is an important task for food safety. Since traditional experiments are both time-consuming and labor-intensive, only a small number of FCMs have sufficient toxicological data for evaluating their effects on human health. While computational methods such as structural alerts and quantitative structure-activity relationships can serve as first-line tools for the identification of chemicals of high toxicity concern, models with binary outputs and unsatisfied accuracy and coverage prevent the use of computational methods for prioritizing chemicals of high concern. This study proposed a genetic algorithm-based method to develop a weight-of-evidence (WoE) model leveraging complementary methods of structural alerts, quantitative structure-activity relationships and in silico toxicogenomics models for chemical prioritization. The WoE model was applied to evaluate 623 food contact chemicals and identify 26 chemicals of high toxicity concern, where 13 chemicals have been reported to be developmental or reproductive toxic and further experiments are suggested for the remaining 13 chemicals without toxicity data related to developmental and reproductive effects. The proposed WoE model is potentially useful for prioritizing chemicals of high toxicity concern and the methodology may be applied to toxicities other than developmental and reproductive toxicity.

Transgenerational effects and recovery of microplastics exposure in model populations of the freshwater cladoceran Daphnia magna Straus

The environmental contamination by microplastics is a global challenge to ecosystem and human health, and the knowledge on the long-term effects of such particles is limited. Thus, the effects of microplastics and post-exposure recovery were investigated over 4 generations (F₀, F₁, F₂, F₃) using Daphnia magna as model. Effect criteria were parental mortality, growth, several reproductive parameters, and population growth rate. Microplastics exposure (0.1mg/l of pristine polymer microspheres 1-5μm diameter) caused parental mortality (10-100%), and significantly (p≤0.05) decreased growth, reproduction, and population growth rate leading to the extinction of the microplastics-exposed model population in the F₁ generation. Females descending from those exposed to microplastics in F₀ and exposed to clean medium presented some recovery but up to the F₃ generation they still had significantly (p≤0.05) reduced growth, reproduction, and population growth rate. Overall, these results indicate that D. magna recovery from chronic exposure to microplastics may take several generations, and that the continuous exposure over generations to microplastics may cause population extinction. These findings have implications to aquatic ecosystem functioning and services, and raise concern on the long-term animal and human exposure to microplastics through diverse routes.

Review of embryo-fetal developmental toxicity studies performed for pharmaceuticals approved by FDA in 2016 and 2017

Details of embryo-fetal development (EFD) studies were compiled for all FDA drug approvals in 2016-17. Rats and rabbits were used for 63% of small molecule (SM) drugs. The cynomolgus monkey was used for 47% of biopharmaceuticals. Rodent studies using the clinical mAb or animal homologue replaced monkey studies under some circumstances. EFD studies were not required for anti-cancer drugs when the mode of action was associated with known developmental risk. One quarter of SM non-oncology drugs and all tested SM anti-cancer drugs were teratogenic in at least one species. The rat and rabbit were essentially equally sensitive to developmental toxicity. Eighty-nine percent of SM non-cancer drugs induced maternal or fetal toxicity in at least one species at below 25-times human exposure (proposed maximum exposure in the draft revised ICH S5(R3) guideline). The pregnancy and lactation labeling rule (PLLR) has brought consistency to the presentation of EFD data in drug labels.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, acetic acid, C7-9-branched alkyl esters, C8-rich, CAS Registry Number 108419-32-5

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog isoamyl acetate (CAS# 123-92-2) show that this material does not have skin sensitization potential. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The repeated dose and developmental endpoint was completed using data on the target material, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, isobornyl isovalerate, CAS registry number 7779-73-9

This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog isobornyl acetate (CAS # 125-12-2) show that this material is not genotoxic, provided a MOE > 100 for the repeated dose, developmental and reproductive endpoints, and does not have skin sensitization potential. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using the TTC (threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class II material (0.47 mg/day). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, ethylene brassylate, CAS Registry Number 105-95-3

: The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (1.4 mg/day). The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using ethylene dodecanedioate (CAS # 54982-83-1) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoint was completed using oxacyclohexadec-12-en-2-one, (12E)- (CAS # 111879-80-2) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra along with data on the target material. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework along with data on the suitable read across analog oxacyclohexadec-12-en-2-one, (12E)- (CAS # 111879-80-2).

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, linalyl benzoate, CAS Registry Number 126-64-7

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog linalyl phenylacetate (CAS # 7143-69-3) show that this material does not have skin sensitization potential. The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using linalyl cinnamate (CAS # 78-37-5) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoint was completed using linalool (CAS # 78-70-6), dehydrolinalool (CAS # 29171-20-8), benzoic acid (CAS # 65-85-0) and sodium benzoate (CAS # 532-32-1) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The local respiratory toxicity endpoint was completed using linalool (CAS # 78-70-6) and benzoic acid (CAS # 65-85-0) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework along with data from the suitable read across analog linalyl cinnamate (CAS # 78-375).

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 3,7-dimethyl-1,6-nonadien-3-ol, CAS Registry Number 10339-55-6

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analog linalool (CAS # 78-70-6) show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential and also provided a MOE > 100 for the local respiratory endpoint. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoints were completed using nerolidol (isomer unspecified, CAS # 7212-44-4) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Isopulegol, CAS Registry Number 89-79-2

This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The repeated dose, developmental and reproductive, and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03, 0.03 mg/kg/day and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 1-(1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-4,4-dimethyl-1-naphthyl)propan-1-one, CAS Registry Number 74499-60-8

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the target material and the suitable read across analog 6-acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7-hexamethyltetraline (CAS # 21145-77-7) show that this material is not genotoxic. Data from the suitable read across analog 6-acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7-hexamethyltetraline (CAS # 21145-77-7) provided a MOE > 100 for the repeat dose and developmental toxicity endpoints. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class II material (0.009 mg/kg/day and 0.47 mg/day, respectively). Data on the target material showed that this material is below the non-reactive DST for skin sensitization and did not have the potential for phototoxicity or photoallergenicity. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, 2-methylundecanol, CAS Registry Number 10522-26-6

This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data from the suitable read across analogs 2-butyloctan-1-ol (CAS # 3913-02-8) and 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) and 1-heptanol, 2-propyl (CAS # 10042-59-8) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The developmental toxicity endpoint was completed using 2-ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS # 104-76-7) as a suitable read across analog, which provided a MOE > 100 The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, linalyl cinnamate, CAS Registry Number 78-37-5

The use of this material under current conditions is supported by existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity/photoallergenicity, skin sensitization, as well as environmental safety. Data show that this material is not genotoxic nor does it have skin sensitization potential. The reproductive and local respiratory toxicity endpoints were completed using the TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern) for a Cramer Class I material (0.03 and 1.4 mg/day, respectively). The developmental toxicity endpoint was completed using linalool (CAS # 78-70-6), dehydrolinalool (CAS # 29171-20-8) and cinnamic acid (CAS # 621-82-9) as suitable read across analogs, which provided a MOE > 100. The repeated dose toxicity endpoint was completed using data on the target material which provided a MOE > 100. The phototoxicity/photoallergenicity endpoint was completed based on suitable UV spectra. The environmental endpoint was completed as described in the RIFM Framework.

Review of embryo-fetal developmental toxicity studies performed for recent FDA-approved pharmaceuticals

Details of embryo-fetal development (EFD) studies were compiled from published FDA approval documents for 43 small molecule drugs (2014-2015) and 37 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs, 2002-2015). Anti-cancer agents were analyzed separately. Rats and rabbits were the species used for EFD studies on 93% of small molecule drugs. Overall, the rat and rabbit were equally sensitive to maternal and fetal toxicity (including teratogenicity). Dosages equivalent to more than 50-times the human exposure (or 10-times for mAbs) were frequently used, but were unnecessary for 90% of drugs. EFD studies were not required for several recently approved mAbs owing to pre-existing scientific knowledge. The cynomolgus monkey was used for developmental toxicity testing of 75% of mAbs, frequently using an ePPND study design. Studies in pregnant rodents using homologous murine antibodies supplemented or replaced monkey studies under some circumstances. Most anti-cancer small molecules and mAbs were tested for developmental toxicity in at least one species.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, linalyl isobutyrate, CAS registry number 78-35-3

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Reproductive toxicity was based on the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) of 0.03 mg/kg/day for a Cramer Class I material. The estimated systemic exposure is determined to be below this value while assuming 80% absorption from skin contact and 100% from inhalation. A systemic exposure below the TTC value is acceptable.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Fenchyl alcohol, CAS registry number 1632-73-1

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Repeated dose toxicity was determined to have the most conservative systemic exposure derived NO[A]EL of 15 mg/kg/day. A gavage 13-week subchronic toxicity study conducted in rats on a suitable read across analog resulted in a MOE of 10,714 while assuming 100% absorption from skin contact and inhalation. A MOE of >100 is deemed acceptable.

RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, Linalyl isovalerate, CAS Registry Number 1118-27-0

The use of this material under current use conditions is supported by the existing information. This material was evaluated for genotoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, local respiratory toxicity, phototoxicity, skin sensitization potential, as well as, environmental safety. Reproductive toxicity was based on the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) of 0.03 mg/kg/day for a Cramer Class I material. The estimated systemic exposure is determined to be equal to this value while assuming 100% absorption from skin contact and inhalation. A systemic exposure at or below the TTC value is acceptable.