Legislation and Current Practices Concerning Risk Assessment of Skin Sensitizers in the European Union: A Comparative and Survey Study.

IF 4.8 1区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY Contact Dermatitis Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1111/cod.14754
Mathias Krogh Pedersen, Jakob Ferløv Baselius Schwensen, Jose Hernán Alfonso, Steen Mollerup, Gianluca Selvestrel, Christina Rudén, Martin F Wilks, Jeanne Duus Johansen
{"title":"Legislation and Current Practices Concerning Risk Assessment of Skin Sensitizers in the European Union: A Comparative and Survey Study.","authors":"Mathias Krogh Pedersen, Jakob Ferløv Baselius Schwensen, Jose Hernán Alfonso, Steen Mollerup, Gianluca Selvestrel, Christina Rudén, Martin F Wilks, Jeanne Duus Johansen","doi":"10.1111/cod.14754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite legislation aimed to protect the population against skin sensitization in the European Union (EU), over one quarter of the general population is sensitised to at least one chemical.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To provide an overview and comparison of European legislation concerning skin sensitization. In addition, we gathered the opinions of experts and stakeholders regarding improvements in the legislation and risk assessment process in the EU, to provide suggestions for improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Legislation was identified and compared. Four questionnaires were created towards industry, competent authorities and regulators, researchers/clinicians, and non-governmental organisations. The questions concerned the legislation, the risk assessment process, data collection and potential improvements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven areas of legislation were analysed. The legislation was found to be unharmonised, for example, differing modes of restriction and accepted tests for skin sensitization. Approximately 40% of the questionnaire respondents found that the EU legislation and tools were not sufficiently protective. To improve the legislation 83% suggested harmonisation and 68% suggested better data sharing. Other areas were: improved exposure data (78%), better understanding of the skin sensitization mechanism (67%) and non-animal tests (66%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Stakeholders had varying confidence towards the protection of European citizens against skin sensitization. Multiple areas for improvement regarding the legislations and the risk assessment process were identified.</p>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contact Dermatitis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14754","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite legislation aimed to protect the population against skin sensitization in the European Union (EU), over one quarter of the general population is sensitised to at least one chemical.

Objectives: To provide an overview and comparison of European legislation concerning skin sensitization. In addition, we gathered the opinions of experts and stakeholders regarding improvements in the legislation and risk assessment process in the EU, to provide suggestions for improvement.

Methods: Legislation was identified and compared. Four questionnaires were created towards industry, competent authorities and regulators, researchers/clinicians, and non-governmental organisations. The questions concerned the legislation, the risk assessment process, data collection and potential improvements.

Results: Seven areas of legislation were analysed. The legislation was found to be unharmonised, for example, differing modes of restriction and accepted tests for skin sensitization. Approximately 40% of the questionnaire respondents found that the EU legislation and tools were not sufficiently protective. To improve the legislation 83% suggested harmonisation and 68% suggested better data sharing. Other areas were: improved exposure data (78%), better understanding of the skin sensitization mechanism (67%) and non-animal tests (66%).

Conclusions: Stakeholders had varying confidence towards the protection of European citizens against skin sensitization. Multiple areas for improvement regarding the legislations and the risk assessment process were identified.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis 医学-过敏
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
30.90%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Contact Dermatitis is designed primarily as a journal for clinicians who are interested in various aspects of environmental dermatitis. This includes both allergic and irritant (toxic) types of contact dermatitis, occupational (industrial) dermatitis and consumers" dermatitis from such products as cosmetics and toiletries. The journal aims at promoting and maintaining communication among dermatologists, industrial physicians, allergists and clinical immunologists, as well as chemists and research workers involved in industry and the production of consumer goods. Papers are invited on clinical observations, diagnosis and methods of investigation of patients, therapeutic measures, organisation and legislation relating to the control of occupational and consumers".
期刊最新文献
Legislation and Current Practices Concerning Risk Assessment of Skin Sensitizers in the European Union: A Comparative and Survey Study. Chronic Prurigo Associated With Allergic Contact Dermatitis: A Case Series Highlighting Textile Dyes and Fragrance Allergens. Occupational Dermatoses in Parachute Riggers: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study. Issue Information Benzoyl Peroxide's Sensitisation Potential and Potency in Experimental Methods and Review of Contact Allergy and Allergic Contact Dermatitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1