RESUMEN
To justify investigations on learning and memory (L&M) function in extended one-generation reproductive toxicity studies (EOGRTS; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guideline (TG) 443) for registration under Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemical (REACH), the European Chemicals Agency has referred to three publications based on which the Agency concluded that "perturbation of thyroid hormone signaling in offspring affects spatial cognitive abilities (learning and memory)" and "Therefore, it is necessary to conduct spatial learning and memory tests for F1 animals". In this paper, the inclusion of the requested L&M tests in an EOGRTS is challenged. In addition, next to the question on the validity of rodent models in general for testing thyroid hormone-dependent perturbations in brain development, the reliability of the publications specifically relied upon by the agency is questioned as these contain numerous fundamental errors in study methodology, design, and data reporting, provide contradicting results, lack crucial information to validate the results and exclude confounding factors, and finally show no causal relationship. Therefore, in our opinion, these publications cannot be used to substantiate, support, or conclude that decreases in blood thyroid (T4) hormone level on their own would result in impaired L&M in rats and are thus not adequate to use as fundament to ask for L&M testing as part of an EOGRTS.
Asunto(s)
Reproducción , Pruebas de Toxicidad , Ratas , Animales , Pruebas de Toxicidad/métodos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , CogniciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Cosmetic products contribute considerably to the incidence of contact dermatitis. In response to a resolution of the Council of Europe, the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) in The Netherlands set up a pilot project to report undesirable effects attributed to cosmetic products. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of undesirable effects attributed to cosmetic products and to identify the ingredients involved. The information could contribute to the assessment of whether current EU legislation on cosmetics provides adequate protection. PATIENTS/METHODS: General practitioners, dermatologists and consumers in The Netherlands completed questionnaires on reported undesirable effects of cosmetics. Dermatologists also carried out patch tests and, where necessary, tests with specific batch ingredients of the associated cosmetic product. A website and a public awareness campaign were launched to encourage consumers to report undesirable effects. RESULTS: Between July 2009 and May 2011, the RIVM received more than 1600 reports. Severe undesirable effects were claimed in 1-4% of the cases. The most frequently reported cosmetic products were make-up and moisturisers, and the most frequently identified allergens were isothiazolinones and fragrance ingredients. Three patients tested positive for co-polymers/cross-polymers. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigations are recommended on the prevalence of isothiazolinone-induced allergic contact dermatitis and the allergenic potential of co-polymers/cross-polymers.