Answer Explanations 4
Not likely to be carcinogenic to humansExpert 9
Considering the WOE, I would conclude that 1,3-D is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.
Not likely to be carcinogenic to humansExpert 6
According to the 6 carcinogenesis studies (in rats and mice) with 1,3-D (without the contamination with epichlorhydrin), and in genotoxicity evaluations, it is possible to affirm that 1,3-D is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, at least in low doses (depending on the exposure).
Not likely to be carcinogenic to humansExpert 11
Based on the increase in liver tumors in Scott (1995), the material tested in this study may have some potential for tumor induction due to observation of dose-response. However, mainly adenomas were seen and there was apparent toxicity with an up to 19 % reduction in body weight gain at the high dose. Availability of another negative rat study and two negative mouse studies indicate no potential for carcinogenicity and thus a low probability of human carcinogenicity in combination with gentox data and kinetics . Results of the NTP study should not be used for conclusions to the issues discussed above. Issues with dose-rate and differences in Cmax between the gavage study and the dietary study further reduce the weight of the positive response in rats in Scott et al., 1995
Not likely to be carcinogenic to humansExpert 5
The in vivo tests are conclusive for non-tumorigenicity of 1,3-D in rodents. However, additional testing could change this opinion. One can always devise additional tests (e.g., lifetime exposure, diffferent rodent strains, knockout mice, tests in non-human primates, tests on fetuses where mothers were exposed) .There is always the possibility some people will have SNP's rendering them more susceptible to genotoxins. So it can't be ruled out entirely that certain individuals with excessive exposure could have a substantial risk from 1,3-D.