Expert 5

The first question as expressed, is a general one, but there is ample evidence in experimental animals that in utero exposure to genotoxic carcinogens can cause cancer in offspring. There is certainly evidence in humans that maternal exposure to certain chemicals can lead to permanent damage in offspring, such as, in the cases of ethanol, thalidomide, and DES. The effects of these compounds may not result from genotoxicity, but they illustrate that chemicals with a wide variety of physico-chemical properties can pass from pregnant woman to fetus. There seems to be no obvious reason why 1,3D should be an exception.

Expert 1

No, unless a repeat somatic cell clastogenicity test would lead to a clear pos response. There are no described cases for a germ cell only mutagen

Expert 14

This cannot be excluded. Concerning the in vitro tests for genotoxic effects of 1,3-D, I would strongly recommend the performance of a robust in vitro micronucleus test in human lymphocytes (OECD TG 487).
0 votes -1 1 vote
Expert 2
04/18/2019 09:37

The first comment above (user553126 [Expert 5] ) is right on target, and suggests that the original question could be broadened to ask "is it possible that 1,3D is a developmental toxin, whether via a genotoxic mechanism or any other mechanism?"

2 votes 2 0 votes
Expert 7
04/18/2019 09:40

Although not summarize in the White paper, it appear from other documents that there is little indication that 1,3-D poses a reproductive toxicity or teratogenic risk. Thus, given the negative findings in the in vivo DNA adduct/mutation studies and the dominant lethal test (recognizing peer review comment on lack of sensitivity) as well as the lack of concern for reproductive/developmental toxicity, there is not a scientific justification to pursue this line of testing based on available evidence. (as stated above "unless a clear clastogen" and then issue would have to be re-visited )

Expert 2
04/18/2019 13:34

To user 232578 [Expert 7] -- probably not our place to say, but if an important question (developmental tox) has been "answered" outside of the White Paper, then it would seem to be a good idea for the White Paper to reflect that (negative) evidence, with references.

Comments are closed for this page.