TOX21: A New Way to Evaluate Chemical Safety and assess risk

How do you know if the chemicals in the stuff you use and eat are safe?
Only a small fraction of the thousands of chemicals in use today have been thoroughly tested for safety. Part of the problem is that how we test chemicals now is slow, expensive, and relies an awful lot on animal testing. However, a new approach is being developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration. It's known as TOX21.
Using innovative techniques such as high throughput screening and computational biology, TOX21 a first step toward revolutionizing how we ensure the safety of the substances we use and carry out risk assessments.
For more information on TOX21, check out the links below.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
TOX21 OVERVIEW
US Environmental Protection Agency www.epa.gov/ncc...
National Toxicology Program ntp.niehs.nih.g...
National Institutes of Health ncats.nih.gov/t...
Toxicology for the twenty-first century. Thomas Hartung. Nature 460, 208-212 (2009) dx.doi.org/10.1...
Improving the Human Hazard Characterization of Chemicals: A Tox21 Update. Environmental Health Perspectives 121, 756-765 (2013) dx.doi.org/10.1...
ILSI NA REVIEW OF TOX21 AND HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES:
Insights and Perspectives on Emerging Inputs to Weight of Evidence Determinations for Food Safety: Workshop ProceedingsInternational Journal of Toxicology 2013 32:405 dx.doi.org/10.1...
NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES
Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. National Academies of Science (2007) www.nap.edu/cat...
Incorporating 21st Century Science into Risk-Based Evaluations dels.nas.edu/St...
MORE USELFUL LINKS
ToxCast™ Program (EPA): www.epa.gov/ncc...
High Throughput Exposure Forecasting (EPA): www2.epa.gov/si...
Building a Robust 21st Century Chemical Testing Program at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Recommendations for Strengthening Scientific Engagement (EHP January 2015) dx.doi.org/10.1...
Hormone disruption and high throughput screening: yosemite.epa.go...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This video draws extensively on discussion and conclusions from the ILSI North America workshop "Insights and Perspectives on Emerging Inputs to Weight of Evidence Determinations for Food Safety: Workshop" in the ProceedingsInternational Journal of Toxicology 2013 32:405 dx.doi.org/10.1...
Many thanks to the members of the ILSI North America Technical Committee on Food and Chemical Safety, Alison Kretser and Mansi Krishan (ILSI NA), Jennifer McPartland (EDF), and Tina Bahadori and Monica Linnenbrink (EPA) for their comments and suggestions. As always with Risk Bites videos, final editorial control lay solely with me.
Backing track: Mandolin Highway by Olive Musique. www.premiumbeat...
Risk Bites videos are devised, created and produced by Andrew Maynard
Risk Bites is your guide to making sense of risk. We cover everything from understanding and balancing the risks and benefits of everyday products, to health science more broadly, to the potential impacts of emerging technologies, to making sense of risk perception. If you enjoy our videos, please subscribe, and spread the word!

[@fabricefreitag9834]

Excellente représentation graphique à diffuser... Quelques images parlent mieux qu'un long discours !

[@0nlyjob]

TOX21 appears to be a "smart" way to ignore unexpected and unintentional side effects. Could be a step forward for modelling but definitely a step back in regards to safety...

[@joanzakrocki9298]

I appreciate very much this introduction into TOX 21 and HTS. I would have liked to see more detail about the still emerging field of computational biology. I'll look at the TOX21 link. I am somewhat relieved that TOX 21 has not overshadowed the need to examine low dose, chronic exposures and the health effects of endocrine disruption chemicals. I realize scientists and health researchers will always have plenty of work , especially due to policies which allow chemicals are produced and marketed without full and impartial toxicity (acute/chronic) testing prior to federal and public availability of these substances. Absolutely, testing is expensive, but so is man made burden of toxicity and disease. Until those who compartmentalize human "vulnerability" to chemicals, hazardous or toxic as "not" really affecting their own lives understand the true potential of an ever increasing toxic world and their own link to our world, existing policies and regulations will leave vulnerable populations in the shadows. Until those who influence policy making view themselves as part of the world's population, public health will remain a distant second behind chemical production, use and profitability. Meanwhile vulnerable populations struggle to trust agencies tasked with safeguarding human health as priority number one.

[@pfanderson200]

Love the new music! Typo in the last link in the TOX21 OVERVIEW section for Further Information.

[@riskbites]

Patricia Anderson Thanks - corrected (I think!)

[@pfanderson200]

It was just an extra space :) Wonderful video! Hoping to blog about it.

[@saya3562]

My aunt is there too .Bravo

[@wadepatton2433]

TOX 21 is no good if the powers that manufacture exert any influence whatsoever. This is the crux of the issue with all "testing" and "scientific" reporting these days. The stream of reports is very muddy with the work by/of/for financially interested parties.

[@riskbites]

Wade Patton I'd disagree. There are conflicting interests of course, but there are also substantial points of agreement on the need for ways to ensure products are safe, which is why you see manufacturers and regulators working together to ensure effective test protocols and regulations - get it right, and in the long run everyone's better off (including consumers and the environment)