1.1.1.: The role and application of expert judgement and weight of evidence determination

1.1.1.1. Where the criteria cannot be applied directly to available identified information, or where only the information referred to in Article 6(5) is available, the weight of evidence determination using expert judgment shall be applied in accordance with Article 9(3) or 9(4) respectively.

1.1.1.2. The approach to classifying mixtures may include the application of expert judgement in a number of areas in order to ensure existing information can be used for as many mixtures as possible in order to provide protection for human health and the environment. Expert judgement may also be required in interpreting data for hazard classification of substances, especially where weight of evidence determinations are needed.

1.1.1.3. A weight of evidence determination means that all available information bearing on the determination of hazard is considered together, such as the results of suitable in vitro tests, relevant animal data, information from the application of the category approach (grouping, read-across), (Q)SAR results, human experience such as occupational data and data from accident databases, epidemiological and clinical studies and well-documented case reports and observations. The quality and consistency of the data shall be given appropriate weight. Information on substances or mixtures related to the substance or mixture being classified shall be considered as appropriate, as well as site of action and mechanism or mode of action study results. Both positive and negative results shall be assembled together in a single weight of evidence determination.

1.1.1.4. For the purpose of classification for health hazards (Part 3) established hazardous effects seen in appropriate animal studies or from human experience that are consistent with the criteria for classification shall normally justify classification. Where evidence is available from both humans and animals and there is a conflict between the findings, the quality and reliability of the evidence from both sources shall be evaluated in order to resolve the question of classification. Generally, adequate, reliable and representative data on humans (including epidemiological studies, scientifically valid case studies as specified in this Annex or statistically backed experience) shall have precedence over other data. However, even well-designed and conducted epidemiological studies may lack a sufficient number of subjects to detect relatively rare but still significant effects, to assess potentially confounding factors. Therefore, positive results from well-conducted animal studies are not necessarily negated by the lack of positive human experience but require an assessment of the robustness, quality and statistical power of both the human and animal data.

1.1.1.5. For the purpose of classification for health hazards (Part 3) route of exposure, mechanistic information and metabolism studies are pertinent to determining the relevance of an effect in humans. When such information, as far as there is reassurance about the robustness and quality of the data, raises doubt about relevance in humans, a lower classification may be warranted. When there is scientific evidence that the mechanism or mode of action is not relevant to humans, the substance or mixture should not be classified.

1.1.0.

1.1.2.

REACH Online

Need help with REACH or CLP?

Languages

Regulations

1.1.1.: The role and application of expert judgement and weight of evidence determination