Public views of animal testing and alternatives in chemical risk assessment

Next-Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA) aims to implement New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) into risk assessment and to rely on new in vivo testing in animals only as a last resort. However, various technical and regulatory hurdles impede their regulatory implementation. Assumptions about the public's expectations could act as barriers to the acceptance of NAMs. This study aimed at investigating public views of animal testing and potential alternatives, namely in vitro and in silico testing. An online survey was conducted (N = 965). The results suggest that people make trade-offs, as they experience negative affect regarding in vivo testing, which partly might explain their openness regarding certain alternatives. In vitro tests were attributed the highest ability to determine harmful effects of chemicals for different endpoints, followed by in vivo and in silico tests. Our results further showed that many people accept chemicals to be only tested with alternatives, with highest acceptance for household consumer products, food contact material or building materials and less accepting for medicines and foods. This article addresses potential challenges that might arise from public perceptions and thus, contributes to the bottom-up initiatives to overcome the hurdles to the implementation of NAMs in regulatory risk assessment.