Vertebrate animal testing

In particular for human toxicity, information shall be generated whenever possible by means other than vertebrate animal tests, through the use of alternative methods, for example, in vitro methods or qualitative or quantitative structure-activity relationship models or from information from structurally related substances (grouping or read-across). 

While we recommend caution in the use of calculation methods in place of actual toxicity tests, we recognize the longer-term importance, for ethical reasons, of Ending validated alternatives to vertebrate animal testing (i.e., with fish and amphibians), such as QSARS. For the present, however, there is no viable alternative to biological testing when deriving definitive EQS values. 

In general, sharing of data involving testing is required. This requirement is not limited to vertebrate animal tests. An increasing potential for conflict seems to be very likely. 

To reduce testing on vertebrate animals, data sharing is required for smdies on such animals. For other tests, data sharing is required on request. 

Test system" now includes animals as opposed to the original text which dealt with animals to the exclusion of other living organisms and other media such as soil and water. In short, environmental protection deals with micro and macrocosms other than those represented by warm blooded vertebrate animals. 

Plants, invertebrate animals, aquatic vertebrate animals, and organisms that may be used in multispecies tests need... 

Review of Literature. An obvious question is why use insects instead of vertebrate animals to study ascorbic acid biochemistry. Primarily, it is more convenient. Insects are relatively small and have a rapid generation time. Large numbers can be used to get valid statistical data. Biological eflFects can be analyzed using a synchronous population where stages of development can be timed with accuracy (29). Small amounts of test material (mg) can be used in most cases. 

The notifier of a substance which was first notified by another manufacturer or importer should refer to the toxicological data in order to avoid duplicating testing on vertebrate animals. Therefore, the first notifier must give his agreement in writing to the reference to the results of the tests or studies before such a reference can be made. 

Because of the delay in the appearance of hemorrhaging following exposure to warfarin and related ARs, a suitable interval must elapse between exposure of experimental animals to the chemical and the assessment of mortality in toxicity testing. Typically, this period is at least 5 days. Some values of acute oral LD50 of rodenticides to vertebrates are given in Table 11.2. 

In vertebrates, the spectrum of w-conotoxin targets is dependent not only on the species of animal being studied, but on the w-conotoxin being used. In chicks and frogs all synapses tested are almost completely inhibited by w-conotoxin GVIA, while in rodents, w-conotoxin GVIA does not inhibit the neuromuscular synapse, and only a fraction of CNS synapses tested are blocked. In contrast, w-conotoxin MVIIA acts much more reversibly and with a much reduced affinity for many amphibian, and some mammalian, synapses. 

CNTs have been studied for cancer therapies despite the fact that these have been shown to accumulate to toxic levels within the organs of diverse animal models and different cell lines (Fiorito et al., 2006 Tong and Cheng, 2007). The molecular and cellular mechanisms for toxicity of carbon nanotubes have not been fully clarified. Furthermore, toxicity must be examined on the basis of multiple routes of administration (i.e., pulmonary, transdermal, ocular, oral, and intravenous) and on multiple species mammals, lower terrestrial animals, aquatic animals (both vertebrates and invertebrates), and plants (both terrestrial and aquatic). A basic set of tests for risk assessment of nanomaterials has been put forward (Nano risk framework). 

---