Abstract
Chemical safety assessment begins with defining the lowest level of chemical that alters one or more measured endpoints. This critical effect level, along with factors to account for uncertainty, is used to derive limits for human exposure. In the absence of data regarding the specific mechanisms or biological pathways affected, non-specific endpoints such as body weight and non-target organ weight changes are used to set critical effect levels. Specific apical endpoints such as impaired reproductive function or altered neurodevelopment have also been used to set chemical safety limits; however, in test guidelines designed for specific apical effect(s), concurrently measured non-specific endpoints may be equally or more sensitive than specific endpoints. This means that rather than predicting a specific toxicological response, animal data are often used to develop protective critical effect levels, without assuming the same change would be observed in humans. This manuscript is intended to encourage a rethinking of how adverse chemical effects are interpreted: non-specific endpoints from in vivo toxicological studies data are often used to derive points of departure for use with safety assessment factors to create recommended exposure levels that are broadly protective but not necessarily target-specific.