Cosmetics Testing

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 93 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

David A Basketter - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Alternative (non-animal) methods for Cosmetics Testing: current status and future prospects—2010
    Archives of Toxicology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sarah Adler, Valérie Zuang, Alexandre Angers-loustau, Aynur Aptula, Stuart Creton, David A Basketter, Jan Van Benthem, Olavi Pelkonen, Klaus Ejner Andersen, Anna Bal-price
    Abstract:

    The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested Cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal Testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7–9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5–7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

  • Alternative (non-animal) methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current status and future prospects-2010
    Archives of Toxicology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sarah Adler, Jan Van Benthem, Valérie Zuang, Alexandre Angers-loustau, Aynur Aptula, Anna Bal-price, Alexandre Angersloustau, Stuart Creton, David A Basketter, Olavi Pelkonen, Klaus Ejner Andersen, Anna Balprice
    Abstract:

    The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested Cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal Testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7-9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5-7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

  • consensus report on the future of animal free systemic toxicity Testing
    ALTEX-Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, 2008
    Co-Authors: Marcel Leist, Nina Hasiwa, Tilman Gocht, Alan M. Goldberg, Mardas Daneshian, David A Basketter, Ian Kimber, Harvey J. Clewell, Costanza Rovida, Francois Busquet
    Abstract:

    Since March 2013, animal use for Cosmetics Testing for the European market has been banned. This requires a renewed view on risk assessment in this field. However, in other fields as well, traditional animal experimentation does not always satisfy require­ments in safety Testing, as the need for human-relevant information is ever increasing. A general strategy for animal-free test approaches was outlined by the US National Research Council’s vision document for Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century in 2007. It is now possible to provide a more defined roadmap on how to implement this vision for the four principal areas of systemic toxicity evaluation: repeat dose organ toxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and allergy induction (skin sensitization), as well as for the evaluation of toxicant metabolism (toxicokinetics) (Fig. 1). CAAT-Europe assembled experts from Europe, America and Asia to design a scientific roadmap for future risk assessment approaches and the outcome was then further discussed and refined in two consensus meetings with over 200 stakeholders. The key recommendations include: focusing on improving existing methods rather than favoring de novo design; combining hazard Testing with toxicokinetics predictions; developing integrated test strategies; incorporating new high content endpoints to classical assays; evolving test validation procedures; promoting collaboration and data-sharing of different industrial sectors; integrating new disciplines, such as systems biology and high throughput screening; and involving regulators early on in the test development process. A focus on data quality, combined with increased attention to the scientific background of a test method, will be important drivers. Information from each test system should be mapped along adverse outcome pathways. Finally, quantitative information on all factors and key events will be fed into systems biology models that allow a probabilistic risk assessment with flexible adaptation to exposure scenarios and individual risk factors.

Anna Bal-price - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Alternative (non-animal) methods for Cosmetics Testing: current status and future prospects—2010
    Archives of Toxicology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sarah Adler, Valérie Zuang, Alexandre Angers-loustau, Aynur Aptula, Stuart Creton, David A Basketter, Jan Van Benthem, Olavi Pelkonen, Klaus Ejner Andersen, Anna Bal-price
    Abstract:

    The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested Cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal Testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7–9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5–7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

  • Alternative (non-animal) methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current status and future prospects-2010
    Archives of Toxicology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sarah Adler, Jan Van Benthem, Valérie Zuang, Alexandre Angers-loustau, Aynur Aptula, Anna Bal-price, Alexandre Angersloustau, Stuart Creton, David A Basketter, Olavi Pelkonen, Klaus Ejner Andersen, Anna Balprice
    Abstract:

    The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested Cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal Testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7-9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5-7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

Valérie Zuang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • alternative non animal methods for Cosmetics Testing current status and future prospects 2010
    Archives of Toxicology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sarah Adle, Jan Van Benthem, Valérie Zuang, Aynur Aptula, Alexandre Angersloustau, David A Askette, Stua Creto, Olavi Pelkone, Klaus Ejne Anderse, Anna Alprice
    Abstract:

    Sarah AdlerDavid BasketterStuart CretonOlavi PelkonenJan van BenthemValerie Zuang • Klaus Ejner AndersenAlexandre Angers-LoustauAynur AptulaAnna Bal-PriceEmilio Benfenati • Ulrike BernauerJos BessemsFrederic Y. BoisAlan BoobisEsther BrandonSusanne Bremer • Thomas BroschardSilvia CasatiSandra CoeckeRaffaella CorviMark CroninGeorge Daston • Wolfgang DekantSusan FelterElise GrignardUrsula Gundert-RemyTuula HeinonenIan Kimber • Jos KleinjansHannu KomulainenReinhard KreilingJoachim KreysaSofia Batista LeiteGeorge Loizou • Gavin MaxwellPaolo MazzatortaSharon MunnStefan PfuhlerPascal PhrakonkhamAldert Piersma • Albrecht PothPilar PrietoGuillermo RepettoVera RogiersGreet SchoetersMichael Schwarz • Rositsa SerafimovaHanna TahtiEmanuela TestaiJoost van DelftHenk van LoverenMathieu Vinken • Andrew WorthJose ´-Manuel Zaldivar

  • Alternative (non-animal) methods for Cosmetics Testing: current status and future prospects—2010
    Archives of Toxicology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sarah Adler, Valérie Zuang, Alexandre Angers-loustau, Aynur Aptula, Stuart Creton, David A Basketter, Jan Van Benthem, Olavi Pelkonen, Klaus Ejner Andersen, Anna Bal-price
    Abstract:

    The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested Cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal Testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7–9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5–7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

  • Alternative (non-animal) methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current status and future prospects-2010
    Archives of Toxicology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sarah Adler, Jan Van Benthem, Valérie Zuang, Alexandre Angers-loustau, Aynur Aptula, Anna Bal-price, Alexandre Angersloustau, Stuart Creton, David A Basketter, Olavi Pelkonen, Klaus Ejner Andersen, Anna Balprice
    Abstract:

    The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested Cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal Testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7-9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5-7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

Aynur Aptula - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • alternative non animal methods for Cosmetics Testing current status and future prospects 2010
    Archives of Toxicology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sarah Adle, Jan Van Benthem, Valérie Zuang, Aynur Aptula, Alexandre Angersloustau, David A Askette, Stua Creto, Olavi Pelkone, Klaus Ejne Anderse, Anna Alprice
    Abstract:

    Sarah AdlerDavid BasketterStuart CretonOlavi PelkonenJan van BenthemValerie Zuang • Klaus Ejner AndersenAlexandre Angers-LoustauAynur AptulaAnna Bal-PriceEmilio Benfenati • Ulrike BernauerJos BessemsFrederic Y. BoisAlan BoobisEsther BrandonSusanne Bremer • Thomas BroschardSilvia CasatiSandra CoeckeRaffaella CorviMark CroninGeorge Daston • Wolfgang DekantSusan FelterElise GrignardUrsula Gundert-RemyTuula HeinonenIan Kimber • Jos KleinjansHannu KomulainenReinhard KreilingJoachim KreysaSofia Batista LeiteGeorge Loizou • Gavin MaxwellPaolo MazzatortaSharon MunnStefan PfuhlerPascal PhrakonkhamAldert Piersma • Albrecht PothPilar PrietoGuillermo RepettoVera RogiersGreet SchoetersMichael Schwarz • Rositsa SerafimovaHanna TahtiEmanuela TestaiJoost van DelftHenk van LoverenMathieu Vinken • Andrew WorthJose ´-Manuel Zaldivar

  • Alternative (non-animal) methods for Cosmetics Testing: current status and future prospects—2010
    Archives of Toxicology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sarah Adler, Valérie Zuang, Alexandre Angers-loustau, Aynur Aptula, Stuart Creton, David A Basketter, Jan Van Benthem, Olavi Pelkonen, Klaus Ejner Andersen, Anna Bal-price
    Abstract:

    The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested Cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal Testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7–9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5–7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

  • Alternative (non-animal) methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current status and future prospects-2010
    Archives of Toxicology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sarah Adler, Jan Van Benthem, Valérie Zuang, Alexandre Angers-loustau, Aynur Aptula, Anna Bal-price, Alexandre Angersloustau, Stuart Creton, David A Basketter, Olavi Pelkonen, Klaus Ejner Andersen, Anna Balprice
    Abstract:

    The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested Cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal Testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7-9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5-7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

Sarah Adler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Alternative (non-animal) methods for Cosmetics Testing: current status and future prospects—2010
    Archives of Toxicology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sarah Adler, Valérie Zuang, Alexandre Angers-loustau, Aynur Aptula, Stuart Creton, David A Basketter, Jan Van Benthem, Olavi Pelkonen, Klaus Ejner Andersen, Anna Bal-price
    Abstract:

    The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested Cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal Testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7–9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5–7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.

  • Alternative (non-animal) methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current status and future prospects-2010
    Archives of Toxicology, 2011
    Co-Authors: Sarah Adler, Jan Van Benthem, Valérie Zuang, Alexandre Angers-loustau, Aynur Aptula, Anna Bal-price, Alexandre Angersloustau, Stuart Creton, David A Basketter, Olavi Pelkonen, Klaus Ejner Andersen, Anna Balprice
    Abstract:

    The 7th amendment to the EU Cosmetics Directive prohibits to put animal-tested Cosmetics on the market in Europe after 2013. In that context, the European Commission invited stakeholder bodies (industry, non-governmental organisations, EU Member States, and the Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) to identify scientific experts in five toxicological areas, i.e. toxicokinetics, repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, skin sensitisation, and reproductive toxicity for which the Directive foresees that the 2013 deadline could be further extended in case alternative and validated methods would not be available in time. The selected experts were asked to analyse the status and prospects of alternative methods and to provide a scientifically sound estimate of the time necessary to achieve full replacement of animal Testing. In summary, the experts confirmed that it will take at least another 7-9 years for the replacement of the current in vivo animal tests used for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients for skin sensitisation. However, the experts were also of the opinion that alternative methods may be able to give hazard information, i.e. to differentiate between sensitisers and non-sensitisers, ahead of 2017. This would, however, not provide the complete picture of what is a safe exposure because the relative potency of a sensitiser would not be known. For toxicokinetics, the timeframe was 5-7 years to develop the models still lacking to predict lung absorption and renal/biliary excretion, and even longer to integrate the methods to fully replace the animal toxicokinetic models. For the systemic toxicological endpoints of repeated dose toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, the time horizon for full replacement could not be estimated.