Atanu joins Rob Mitkus, a PhD toxicologist with 25 years’ experience across pesticides, industrial chemicals, vaccine components, medical devices, and consumer products, to discuss how toxicology underpins Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and HazCom/GHS compliance. Rob defines toxicity as harm under specific conditions and emphasizes SDS content and precautions should be evidence-driven and understandable to downstream users including workers, consumers, and first responders. They discuss reliance on animal “sentinel species,” the rise of new approach methodologies (in vitro, in silico, machine learning), and validation/acceptance via bodies such as OECD and ICCVAM, noting limits for complex endpoints like carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity. Rob critiques GHS concepts like “intrinsic toxicity,” the definition of sensitization, and hazard-only/binary classifications, stressing dose-response and exposure. He highlights the psychology of threat perception from pictograms and calls for better training and toxicologist involvement in future standards.
00:00 Meet the Toxicologist
01:28 What Toxicity Means
02:44 Toxicology in SDS
04:23 Who Uses SDS
07:09 Why Animal Data Matters
10:23 Choosing Sentinel Species
12:12 New Approach Methods
14:02 Validating NAMs Worldwide
19:18 EPA Skin Sensitization Case
21:10 AI Promise and Pitfalls
24:59 Do SDSs Communicate Well
30:24 Marketing Pushback on Hazards
33:00 Consumer Labels and Overload
34:20 Reading Labels Beyond Icons
36:08 GHS Strengths and Limits
37:53 Myth of Intrinsic Toxicity
41:22 AI Bias From Bad Data
42:43 Sensitization Defined Wrong
47:38 Carcinogen Labels Need Dose
53:44 Threat Psychology and Symbols
59:14 Toxicologists Future Role
01:03:48 Closing and Resources