Skip to main content
NCBI home page
EFSA Journal logoLink to EFSA Journal
. 2011 Dec 7;9(12):2438. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2438

Guidance on conducting repeated‐dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rodents on whole food/feed

EFSA Scientific Committee
PMCID: PMC13093050  PMID: 42015997

Abstract

Following a request from the European Commission, the Scientific Committee developed principles and guidance for the establishment of protocols for 90‐day whole food/feed studies in rodents. The guidance complements the OECD Test guideline 408 and provides specific advice for performing and reporting experiments carried out with whole food/feed. The conduct of the study and documentation should follow good laboratory practice. Preparation of appropriate test diets is a key element of the experiment with respect to the choice of the diet type, nutritional balance and necessary adjustments, processing, and storage. Since it is often not possible to include whole foods in high amounts in the test diet, fewer dose levels but more animals in control and top dose groups should be used to maximise the power of the study. In accordance with the European Directive 2010/063, the test animals should be housed socially. The guidance recommends that animals of the same sex are housed in pairs. A comprehensive set of endpoints as set out in the OECD TG 408 should be measured during and at the end of the 90‐day period, as appropriate. The use of a power analysis to estimate a sample size capable of detecting a pre‐specified biologically relevant effect size with a specified power and significance level is described. A randomised block design is recommended for 90‐day toxicity studies when testing whole food/feed.

Keywords: Repeated‐dose toxicity study, 90‐day, rodent, whole food/feed, experimental design, statistical analysis

EFSA Scientific Committee ; 2011. EFSA guidance on conducting repeated‐dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rodents on whole food/feed. EFSA Journal 2011;9(12):2438 [21 pp.] doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2438.

Scientific committee members: Boris Antunović, Sue Barlow, Andrew Chesson, Albert Flynn, Anthony Hardy, Michael Jeger, Ada Knaap, Harry Kuiper, David Lovell, Birgit Nørrung, Iona Pratt, Ivonne Rietjens, Josef Schlatter, Vittorio Silano, Frans Smulders and Philippe Vannier

Correspondence: scientific.committee@efsa.europa.eu

Acknowledgement: The Scientific Committee wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on 90‐day feeding trials on whole food/feed: Gerrit Alink, Gianfranco Brambilla, Noel Albert Dierick, Michael Festing, Gerhard Flachowsky, Gijs Kleter, Joel Guillemain, Harry Kuiper (Chair), Morten Poulsen, Vittorio Silano and Hans Verhagen for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion, and EFSA staff Saghir Bashir, Bernard Bottex, David Carlander, Ellen van Haver, Daniela Maurici and Laura Martino for the support provided to this scientific opinion.

Adoption date: 9 November 2011

Published date: 7 December 2011

Question number: EFSA‐Q‐2009‐00941

On request from: European Commission

References

  1. Aggett, P.J. , Antoine, J.M. , Asp, N.G. , Bellisle, F. , Contor, L. , Cummings, J.H. , Howlett, J. , Müller, D.J.G. , Persin, C. , Pijls, L.T.J. , Rechkemmer, G. , Tuijtelaars, S. , Verhagen, H. , 2005. Passclaim. Eur. J. Nutr. 44, 5–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. ANSES (Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail) , 2011. Opinion of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety ‐ Recommendations for carrying our statistical analyses of data from 90‐day rat feeding studies in the context of marketing authorisation applications for GM organisms. Request no. 2009‐SA‐0285.
  3. Clarke, HE , Coates ME, EVA JK, Ford DJ, Milner CK, O'Donoghue PN, Scott PP and Ward RJ, 1977. Dietary standards for laboratory animals: report of the Laboratory Animals Centre Diets Advisory Committee. Laboratory Animals 11, 1–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cochran WG and Cox GM, 1957. Experimental designs. New York, London: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1–611. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cox DR, 1958. Planning experiments. Ed. John Wiley and Sons: New York. [Google Scholar]
  6. Crissman JW, Goodman DG, Hildebrandt PK, Maronpot RR, Prater DA, Riley JH, Seaman WJ, Thake DC. 2004. Best practices guideline: toxicologic histopathology. Toxicol.Pathol. 32: 126–131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. EC (European Commission) Scientific Committee on Food. 2001. Guidance on submissions for safety evaluation of sources of nutrients or other ingredients proposed for use in the manufacture of foods. Available at: ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out100_en.pdf
  8. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to Aspects of the biology and welfare of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes . The EFSA Journal, 292, 1–46 www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/292.pdf [Google Scholar]
  9. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2009. Opinion of the Scientific Committee on a request from EFSA on existing approaches incorporating replacement, reduction and refinement of animal testing: applicability in food and feed risk assessment. The EFSA Journal, 1052, 1–77. [Google Scholar]
  10. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2011. Scientific opinion on Statistical significance and biological biological relevance. EFSA Journal 9 (9): 2372 [2372 pp.]. [Google Scholar]
  11. EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials , 2008. Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived foodand feed: The role of animal feeding trials. Food and Chemical Toxicology 46: S2–S70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) , 2010. Scientific Opinion on Statistical considerations for the safety evaluation of GMOs. EFSA Journal 8 (1): 1250, [59 pp.] [Google Scholar]
  13. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) , 2011a. Scientific Opinion on Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 9 (5): 2150. [37 pp.] [Google Scholar]
  14. EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) , 2011b. Guidance document on Selection of Comparators for the Risk Assessment of GM Plants. EFSA Journal 9 (5): 2149. [21 pp.] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis PD. 2010. The essential guide to effect sizes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010: 3–173. [Google Scholar]
  16. FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Redbook , 2000. Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders, Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment of Food Ingredients. July 2000; Revised July 2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. www.cfsan.fda.gov/guidance.html.
  17. FELASA , 1996. Recommendations for the health monitoring of mouse, rat, hamster, gerbil, guinea pig and rabbit experimental units. Report of the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) Working Group on Animal Health accepted by the FELASA Board of Management, November 1995. Laboratory Animals, 30, 193–208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Festing MFW and Lutz C, 2010. Introduction to laboratory animal genetics. In: Hubrecht R, Kirkwood J, editors. The care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals. 8th. ed. Oxford, Ames: Wiley‐Blackwell, pp. 37–60. [Google Scholar]
  19. Festing MFW and Lutz C, 2011. Laboratory Animal Genetics and Genetic Quality Control. In: Hau J, Schapiro SJ, editors. Handbook of Laboratory Animals Science. 3rd. ed. CRC Press, 209–50. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fisher RA, 1960. The design of experiments. New York: Hafner Publishing Company, Inc, 1–248. [Google Scholar]
  21. Knudsen I and Poulsen M, 2007. Comparative Safety Testing of Genetically Modified Foods in a 90‐Day Rat Feeding Study Design Allowing the Distinction between Primary and Secondary Effects of the New Genetic Event. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 49, 53–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lapiz MD, Fulford A, Muchimapura S, Mason R, Parker T, Marsden CA. 2001. Influence of postweaning social isolation in the rat on brain development, conditioned behaviour and neurotransmission. Ross.Fiziol.Zh.Im I.M.Sechenova, 87:730–751 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Leshem M and Sherman M, 2006. Troubles shared are troubles halved: stress in rats is reduced in proportion to social propinquity. Physiol Behav, 89 (3): 399–401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Mead R, 1988. The design of experiments. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–620. [Google Scholar]
  25. Montgomery DC, 1984. Design and Analysis of Experiments. Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. [Google Scholar]
  26. Myhrer T. 1998. Adverse psychological impact, glutamatergic dysfunction, and risk factors for Alzheimer's disease. Neurosci.Biobehav.Rev.; 23: 131–139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Nakagawa S and Cuthill IC, 2007. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc, 82: 591–605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. NRC (National Research Council) , 2005. Nutrient requirements of laboratory animals. Fourth revised edition, 1995. [PubMed]
  29. OECD. 1998a. Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals – Repeated Dose 90‐day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents, 408. browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/9740801e.pdf
  30. OECD. 1998b. Principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and Compliance Monitoring. www.oecd.org/document/63/0,2340,en_2649_34381_2346175_1_1_1_1,00.html
  31. OECD. 2008. Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals – Repeated Dose 28‐day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents, 407. browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/free/9740701e.pdf
  32. Poulsen M, Schrøder M, Wilcks A, Kroghsbo S, Lindecrona RH, Miller A, Frenzel T, Danier J, Rychlik M, Shu Q, Emami K, Taylor M, Gatehouse A, Engel KH, Knudsen I, 2007. Safety testing of GM‐rice expressing PHA‐E lectin using a new animal test design. Food/feed Chem. Toxicol. 45, 364–377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rao GN and Knapka JJ, 1987. Contaminant and Nutrient Concentrations of Natural Ingredient Rat and Mouse Diet Used in Chemical Toxicology Studies. Fundam Appl. Toxicol. 9, 329–338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Stevens KA and Russel RJ, 2007. Chapter 10: Nutrition. The mouse in the biomedical research. Eds Fox JG, Barthold S, Davisson M, Newcomer CE, Quimby FW, Smith A. II Edition Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  35. TASCC (Trade Assurance Scheme for Combinable Crops) , 2010. Code of Practice for the Storage of Combinable Crops and Animal Feeds. Effective from July 1st 2010. www.agindustries.org.uk/document.aspx?fn=noad&media_id=3734&publicationId=2150
  36. Verhagen H, Aruoma OI, van Delft JHM., Dragsted LO, Ferguson LR, Knasmüller S, Pool‐Zobel BL, Poulsen HE, Williamson G, Yannai S, 2003. Editorial ‐ The 10 basic requirements for a scientific paper reporting antioxidant, antimutagenic or anticarcinogenic potential of test substances in in vitro experiments and animal studies in vivo. Food and Chemical Toxicology 41: 603–610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Westenbroek C, Ter Horst GJ, Roos MH, Kuipers SD, Trentani A, den Boer JA, 2003. Gender‐specific effects of social housing in rats after chronic mild stress exposure. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 27 (1): 21–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from EFSA Journal are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES