Descriptive Animal Toxicity Tests

2003 ◽  
pp. 109-114
1991 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 302-307
Author(s):  
Michael Balls

The use of terms such as “cruelty-free” and “not tested on animals” in relation to cosmetic ingredients and products is reviewed. It is concluded that, such is the confusion that has been engendered by their misuse, legitimate concerns for both human and animal welfare are compromised, and unfair trading practices are in operation. It is proposed that such misleading terminology should be prohibited within the EEC, and that more effort should be put into the development, validation and regulatory acceptance of non-animal toxicity tests and testing strategies.


2021 ◽  
pp. 026119292199475
Author(s):  
John C. Dearden ◽  
Mark Hewitt

The prediction of human toxicities from animal toxicity tests is often poor, and is now discouraged and in some cases banned, especially those involving the LD50 test. However, there is a vast number of historical LD50 data in both public and in-house repositories that are being put to little use. This study examined the correlations between human lethality (doses and concentrations) of 36 MEIC chemicals and the median values of a large number of mouse and rat LD50 values obtained for four different routes of administration. The best correlations were found with mouse and rat intraperitoneal LD50 values (r2 = 0.838 and 0.810 for human lethal dose, and r2 = 0.753 and 0.785 for human lethal concentration). The results show that excellent prediction of human lethal dose and concentration can be made, for this series of chemicals at least, by using uncurated rodent LD50 values, thus offering some reparation for the millions of rodent lives sacrificed in LD50 testing.


1992 ◽  
Vol 20 (3-2) ◽  
pp. 534-537
Author(s):  
Jun Kanno

In toxicity testing, each animal may have to be viewed as a surrogate for millions of people and should be examined as thoroughly as a human patient. However, there are many differences between human diagnosis and animal toxicity testing. Human diagnosis is primarily based on anamnesis, symptoms, and utilization of a huge database of diseases. However, in animal toxicity testing, clinical and anatomical pathology data are usually a primary source of toxicity information, even though the positive endpoints are generally not known in advance and the number of positive toxicity endpoints may be numerous. This situation will generate at least 2 practical problems in clinical pathology testing: (1) how to preselect test items without precise knowledge of toxicity endpoints and (2) how to handle multiple data sets for toxicity detection. The latter includes issues of inflation of the overall false-positive rate and multicomparison problems. A "disease" called "significantosis" and a concept of integrated interpretation of multiple biologically related items to avoid false-positive judgments and unnecessary censoring of meaningful outlier data are briefly discussed. In general, toxicity tests are quite exploratory and the endpoints are unknown and multiple, so the procedures for data interpretation should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Construction of toxicity entity-oriented databases may be a requirement for further refinement of toxicity study interpretation.


1964 ◽  
Vol 116 (2) ◽  
pp. 523-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. M. Peck ◽  
A. F. Woodhour ◽  
D. P. Metzgar ◽  
S. E. McKinney ◽  
M. R. Hilleman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document