EDSP Validation Gary E.Timm Senior Technical Advisor Office of Science Coordination and Policy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Health and Safety Executive Ecotoxicology Annex II and III data requirements Mark Clook Chemicals Regulation Directorate Health and Safety Executive UK.
Advertisements

Pesticides and endocrine disruption Hans Muilerman, PAN Europe
EPAA Conference 5 November 2007 Georgette LALIS Enterprise and Industry DG European Commission The international dimension of regulatory acceptance.
Perspectives from EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation Laura L. Hungerford, DVM, MPH, PhD Senior Advisor, Science and Policy, ONADE Professor, University of Maryland School.
Pubertals and One-generation Extension. Overview of questions Does the fire raise significant concerns? Should the EPA bring the pubertal and one-gen.
A Two-Tiered-Testing Decision Tree for Assays in the USEPA-EDSP Screening Battery: Using 15 years of experience to improve screening and testing for endocrine.
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Ralph L. Cooper Endocrinology Branch Reproductive Toxicology Division NHEERL, U.S. EPA Male and Female Pubertal.
UNEP Advisory Group Meeting Geneva, Switzerland December 12, 2014
Richard A. Becker, Ph.D., D.A.B.T American Chemistry Council Arlington, Virginia Comments on “Dose Setting” EDMVS Meeting July 23-24, 2002.
1 Post-UNEP/WHO EDC State of the Science 2012 report Personal reflections by Åke Bergman, coordinator of the above mentioned report, IPCP vice chair and.
June 2010 LANDSIEDEL 1 Chemical Industries Role in Tomorrows Toxicity Testing Robert Landsiedel, Susanne Kolle, Tzutzuy Ramirez, Hennicke Kamp and Ben.
1 Office of Pesticide Programs Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division Sheryl K. Reilly, Ph.D. Chief, Biochemical Pesticides Branch
Priority-setting for the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Pesticide Active Ingredients Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp Office of Pesticide Programs U.S.
National Pesticide Program A New Toxicology Testing Paradigm: Meeting Common Needs Steven Bradbury, Director Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office.
Endocrine Screening – Phase 1 TSCA 8(e) and FIFRA 6(a)(2) Requirements A. Michael Kaplan, Ph.D. December 13, 2010 A. Michael Kaplan & Associates, LLC
Lessons Learned in Initiating and Conducting Risk Assessments within a Risk Analysis Framework: A FDA/CFSAN Approach Robert Buchanan DHHS Food and Drug.
EPA Tier I Screening Process and
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute The International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (ISRTP)
NSF/ANSI STANDARD 61 FRAMEWORK FOR RISK ASSESSMENTS For use by Toxicology Sub-committee only Please do not copy or distribute.
and Environmental Risk Assessment
Value of in vitro assays in your REACH dossier Frédérique van Acker 18 November 2014.
Evolution of ICCVAM ◊National Toxicology Program Develop and validate improved test methods ◊NIH Revitalization Act: P.L Develop and.
WILLIAM JORDAN DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY US EPA Regulation of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.
Criteria for Screens— Review of the EDSTAC Recommendations Presentation to the EDMVS July 23, 2002.
What Information Fulfills EDSP Screening Requirements?
Characterizing Chemical in Commerce: Using Data on High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals December 12, 2006 L. Twerdok, Ph.D, DABT NPPTAC Member Report.
The Intact Male Assay As An Alternative Tier I Screening Assay For Detecting Endocrine-Active Compounds John C. O’Connor DuPont Haskell Laboratory for.
Status of the U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Status of the U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) September
Office of Pesticide Programs 21st Century Screening Assessment of Pesticides – A Regulatory View Vicki Dellarco, Ph.D. Senior Science Advisor Office of.
HERA at CED XXXI C.Lally 1 Human & Environmental Risk Assessment Human Health Risk Assessment under HERA: Challenges and Solutions Christeine Lally Co-Chair.
EDSP’s Approach to Test Protocol Validation Office of Science Coordination and Policy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program Diane Sheridan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency October 25, 2005 Region 2 Emerging Chemicals Workshop.
Quill Law Group LLC1 Endocrine Disruption and Personal Care Products --- Legislative Developments Terry F. Quill Quill Law Group LLC 1667 K St, NW Washington,
Quill Law Group LLC1 EDSP Compliance Timing, Procedural and Legal Issues Terry F. Quill Quill Law Group LLC 1667 K St, NW Washington, DC
Session I – Session I – Strengths and Weaknesses of the EDSP Screening Assays Moderator: Angelina J. Duggan Exponent Health Group September 9, 2009.
Multimedia Assessment for New Fuels: Stakeholders’ Meeting September 13, 2005 Sacramento, CA Dean Simeroth, California Air Resources Board Dave Rice, Lawrence.
Slide 1 of 24 EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Use of Exposure Data in Priority Setting Bill Wooge Office of Science Coordination and.
United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 1 National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection August 8-9, 2007.
Forging Partnerships on Emerging Contaminants November 2, 2005 John Vandenberg Associate Director for Health National Center for Environmental Assessment.
1 Tier 1 EDSP: Other Scientifically Relevant Information Barbara Neal Exponent December 13, 2010.
ELLEN MIHAICH, PH.D., DABT ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY RESOURCES ISRTP WORKSHOP DECEMBER 13, 2010 EDSP Test Guidelines and Guideline Modifications 1.
Wildlife Screens What Do They Tell Us? Dr. Pat Guiney Manager Global Safety, Regulatory & Environmental Assessment S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Racine, WI.
1 New NAAQS Review Process Briefing for EPA Staff Kevin Teichman, ORD and Lydia Wegman, OAQPS April 5, 2007.
Which information identifies a chemical as endocrine disrupting? Poul Bjerregaard Institute of Biology University of Southern Denmark Odense and Danish.
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant Department of Toxicology University of Würzburg Germany Risk, Hazard, and Innovation.
Development of a Common Effects Methodology for OW and OPP EPA Development Team Office of Pesticide Programs Office of Water Office of Research and Development.
Communications and the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ISRTP Workshop December 13, 2010.
Quill Law Group LLC1 EDSP Implementation Business and Legal Considerations Terry F. Quill Quill Law Group LLC 1667 K St, NW Washington, DC
NRT/RRT Co-Chairs Meeting 2002 NRT Initiatives and Accomplishments John Gustafson Executive Director, National Response Team March 4, 2003.
EDSP: T IER 1 T ESTING I NFORMATION C OLLECTION ISRTP 2010 Endocrine Workshop EDSP Compliance December 13, 2010 Susan Ferenc, DVM, Ph.D.
Introduction to Session II: Incorporating Existing Data into the EDSP Erik R. Janus Director, Human Health Policy CropLife America.
The Male’ Declaration Proposal for Phase III. Looking back to think ahead Policy Dialogue Background Materials Ministerial agreement Capacity building.
Prioritization Process and Development of the Hazard Characterization Documents Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection.
Science Symposium, 26 May 2014, New Delhi, India Dr Gerald Renner Director Technical Regulatory Affairs Cosmetics Europe EU scenario on alternatives in.
EDSP Implementation: Concerns for the Pesticide Industry ISRTP 2009 Endocrine Workshop: The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: What Can Screening Results.
Office of Research and Development National Center for Environmental Assessment Human Health Risk Assessment and Information for SRP July 28, 2009 Reeder.
Nanosafety ISO TC 229 Nanotechnologies Standardization in the field of nanotechnologies that includes either or both of the following:  1. Understanding.
Abstract A step-wise or ‘tiered’ approach has been used as a rational procedure to conduct environmental risk assessments in many disciplines. The Technical.
Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing: An Industry Update
Making it more relevant! Higher-tier data and Weight of Evidence Day 2. Adam Peters and Graham Merrington 2017.
Susan Makris U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development
Update on recent developments in the ed regulatory landscape in Europe
Comments on Using Existing Data for the Endocrine Screening Testing Lorenz Rhomberg, PhD Principal Gradient ISRTP 2009 Endocrine Workshop.
Mammalian Tier I EDSP Screening Assays: What do they tell us?
Chemicals Policy Area Up-date
International Initiatives and the U.S. HPV Challenge Program
JRC support to EC work on endocrine disrupters
Presentation transcript:

EDSP Validation Gary E.Timm Senior Technical Advisor Office of Science Coordination and Policy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Framework EPA proposed a Two Tier screening process: Screening (Tier 1) –Identifies substances for further testing Testing (Tier 2) –Identifies adverse effects and establishes dose-response relationship for hazard assessment

TIER 1 SCREENING Detect potential for endocrine disruption Screens should be –inexpensive, quick, simple –standardized and validated –more sensitive than specific –able to detect multiple endpoints –readily interpretable Use information to –make initial judgments –direct and focus tier 2 tests

Modes of Action Hormone synthesis and clearance Hormone storage and release Hormone transport Receptor binding Altered post-receptor activation

PROPOSED SCREENING BATTERY (Tier 1) In vitro Screens –ER Binding / Reporter Gene Assay* –AR Binding / Reporter Gene Assay* –Steroidogenesis Assay with minced testis In vivo Screens –Rodent 3-day Uterotrophic Assay (sc) –Rodent 20-day Pubertal Female Assay with Thyroid –Rodent 5-7 day Hershberger Assay –Frog Metamorphosis Assay –Fish Reproduction Screening Assay * These assays are in the HTPS

ALTERNATE SCREENING ASSAYS Rodent 20-day Pubertal Male Assay with Thyroid Placental aromatase Rodent in utero through Lactation Assay

Screening Battery Example 1 In vitro Screens –ER Binding or Reporter Gene Assay* –AR Binding or Reporter Gene Assay* –Placental aromatase + –Steroidogenesis Assay with minced testis # In vivo Screens –Rodent 3-day Uterotrophic Assay (sc) –Rodent 20-day Pubertal Male Assay with Thyroid + –Rodent 20-day Pubertal Female Assay w/ Thyroid # –Rodent 5-7 day Hershberger Assay # –Frog Metamorphosis Assay –Fish Gonadal Recrudescence Assay + Assays in yellow replace assays in red #

Screening Battery Example 2 In vitro Screens –ER Binding or Reporter Gene Assay* –AR Binding or Reporter Gene Assay* –Steroidogenesis Assay with minced testis # In vivo Screens –Rodent 3-day Uterotrophic Assay (sc) # –In-utero Assay + –Rodent 20-day Pubertal Female Assay w/ Thyroid # –Rodent 5-7 day Hershberger Assay # –Frog Metamorphosis Assay –Fish Gonadal Recrudescence Assay + Assays in yellow relace assays in red #

TIER 2 TESTING Confirm and characterize endocrine effects Tests should –determine if effects are a primary or secondary disturbance of endocrine function –establish exposure/concentrations/timing and effects relationships –be sensitive and specific –assess relevant endpoints –include life cycle of live-bearing and egg-laying species –include a dose range for full characterization of effects –be conducted in accordance with GLP –be validated

PROPOSED TIER 2 TESTING BATTERY Multigeneration reproduction and development studies –Rodents –Birds –Frogs –Fish –Shrimp

Validation Process Stakeholder Involvement Standardization and Validation Task Force –Technical group made up of major stakeholders –3 expert workgroups: in vitro, mammalian, ecotoxicity –To be replaced by FACA EDSPVAC –To be chartered by September 2000 –Will advise EPA on Standardization and validation issues

Validation of Test Methods ICCVAM What is it? Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods What does it do? – Establises criteria for validation and regulatory acceptance of alternative test methods –Set up process for regulatory acceptance of alternative methods

Validation Process 1. Research/Method Development 2. Demonstration of Relevance 3. Standardization of Protocol 4. Validation in multiple laboratories 5. Scientific Peer Review

Validation Process Statutory Requirements All screens and tests in the EDSP must be validated The FIFRA Scienctific Advisory Panel (SAP) must review the EDSP The SAP must peer review all test guidelines to be used under FIFRA

Validation Process ICCVAM Role ER and AR binding assays to be validated by ICCVAM –no laboratory work required –generic performance criteria to be established rather than specific methods All other assays to be validated in EPA process with extensive ICCVAM coordination

EPAValidation Process ICCVAM Role Method development and preparation of Background Review Document (BRD) Pre-validation--demonstration of relevance and development of standardized protocol Determination of readiness for validation in consultation with ICCVAM Validation Peer review by SAP/SAB and review by ICCVAM

VALIDATION APPROACH Human health related assays are highest EPA priority (2- 3 year time frame ) –in vitro assays –Uterotrophic, Hershberger –Female and male pubertal assays –Rodent in utero screen –Rodent multigeneration demonstration Ecotoxicological assays EPA second order priority (3 -5 year time frame ) –frog metamorphosis assay –fish reproductive screen –fish, frog, and invertebrate reproduction and development studies

VALIDATION APPROACH Select chemicals specific to each assay, validate assay rather than battery More chemicals in pre-validation to establish relevance of assay and standardize the protocol than in validation phase Battery validation will be a paper exercise

Ongoing EPA Work Completed initial demonstration of relevance –Female Pubertal Development Assay (4/2000) –Male Pubertal Development Assay (4/2000) Need to refine and standardize protocols Initial developmental protocol trials –Frog metamorphosis assay (8/99) –Fish Reproduction Screening Assay (8/99) Additional effort needed on frog assay before a determination of relvance/usefulness can be made

OECD ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR TESTING AND ASSESSMENT WORKGROUP Framework for Screening and Testing Standardizing/validating three screens: –Uterotrophic –Hershberger –28-Day repeat dose study (OECD Method 407) Updating existing guidelines –Example: Mammalian multi-generation reproduction study (OECD Method 416) Developing new guidelines –Avian multi-generation reproduction study –Fish partial life-cycle reproduction research

Status of Assays

Tier I Validation Program Projections

Summary Priority Setting Tier I Validation Tier II Validation Phase I Screening