On the skin sensitisation potential of rosin and oxidised rosin.

In the EU rosin is classified as a skin sensitiser, apparently on the basis of its oxidation to sensitising agents. Rosin (gum, tall oil or wood) is not a skin sensitiser when examined in the guinea pig maximisation test (GPMT). Oxidised rosins are sensitisers in the GPMT. Oxidised gum rosin was further tested in the mouse local lymph node assay (LLNA) and the Buehler test, but is not a sensitiser in either of these tests. Further, the outcome of the LLNA can be used to assess the potency of oxidised rosin as an inducing agent in humans, and oxidised rosin is, at most, a weak sensitiser in this test. Thus, oxidised rosin is not a potent inducing agent for skin sensitisation unless the dermal barrier is bypassed and/or there is deliberate use of Freund's Complete Adjuvant to induce greater susceptibility. The material used for human patch testing ('colophony') is in oxidised form. A re-examination of epidemiological studies suggests that patients in dermatological clinics show higher response rates than do the general population or those occupationally exposed to presumably oxidised rosin. Thus, the differences seen in susceptibility in the regulatory tests may be reflected in the human population. These results are discussed in terms of possible testing and classification strategies for dealing with existing chemicals, with particular reference to the new European Union legislation.

Past challenges faced: an overview of current educational activities of IUTOX.

Over the past decade, educational programmes have been the main focus of the activities of the International Union of Toxicology (IUTOX). The IUTOX educational programmes are dynamic and have been growing in scope and frequency each year. It is envisaged that this growth will continue with guidance from our member societies and the continuing support of our sponsors. Presently, IUTOX is engaged in the following educational programmes: (1) International congresses that provide the opportunity for direct communication of current toxicological information. Fellowships are sponsored to facilitate attendance at these congresses for toxicologists in need. (2) Workshops that permit interaction on a more localised level of topics of more regional interest. Workshops have served to help stimulate formation of toxicology societies by bringing together sufficient scientists to facilitate these discussions. (3) Continuing educational (CE) programmes at member society meetings. Topics are prioritized based on input received from the local societies. Programmes often are those from CE courses given at meetings, such as conferences of the US Society of Toxicology (US SOT) and EUROTOX from the previous year. (4) Biennial Risk Assessment Summer School (RASS), an intensive week-long interaction between senior toxicologists who serve as faculty with attendees providing individual training. (5) Dissemination of donated printed toxicological books from publishers and syllabi from continuing education courses to regional locations. (6) Web-based interactive training programmes in regions where formal toxicological educational programmes are limited or lacking. (7) Preparation and distribution of monographs on selected topics of very current interest. Monographs on environmental oestrogens and genetically-modified foods have been published. The recent activities in each of these programmes are reviewed in this paper.

Good Evaluation Practice: a proposal of guidelines.

The intention of this proposal is to describe principles for Good Evaluation Practice (GEP) of toxicological and risk evaluations with the aim to improve the quality, reliability, and transparency of any evaluation in toxicology. The GEP has been outlined in the same way as the principles for Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) to facilitate its introduction and compliance. The main characteristic of GEP is transparency. The GEP procedure should include the following elements: (1) definition of terms; (2) description of evaluation organization; (3) description of the quality assurance of the programme; (4) description of the standard evaluation procedures; (5) performance of the evaluation; (6) reporting of the evaluation; (7) storage and retention of records and material; and (8) guidelines for the evaluation procedure. The authors' intent is to raise awareness, stimulate a debate about the proposal, expect and welcome feedback in order to refine it, and make it into an important tool for all toxicological evaluations in the future.