requests for new  in vivo studies, or for having to repeat existing studies as a result of  updated test guidelines, or because the study is considered to be of insufficient quality,  hence minimising the need for additional animal testing. $^{5}$ Global Coalition for Regulatory Science Research  $^{6}$ International Liaison Group on Methods for Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food  3  • This situation offers an opportunity for EFSA and its partners, connected to the future of  chemical risk assessment, to share the work, avoid duplication and jointly prioritise activities  for the evolution of the paradigm to incorporate NAMs based mechanistic understanding and  o extended bilateral collaborations with interested international partners, such as U.S.  EPA, U.S. FDA and Health Canada. o further involvements in the activities of international organisations, in particular  OECD, FAO and WHO, and o existing cooperation lines with the organisations mentioned above and with DG  SANTE, DG RTD & Innovation, and the European Partnership for Alternative  Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA) • Increase cooperation with key players in Europe, in particular DG JRC, ECHA, EMA, EU  Member States, and international regulatory networks such as OECD, APCRA, GCRSR 5  and  ILMERAC 6 . The roadmap will be built on:  • While at EU level JRC is leading the validation and 3Rs activities and ECHA the use of NAMs  for screening and standardisation, the use of NAMs for mechanistic hazard assessments and  informative risk characterisation of chemicals in the regulatory context represents a clear  opportunity, and is key for the next generation testing and assessment of chemicals in food  and feed. • Society requires EFSA to produce more informative human health risk assessments, e.g.  addressing vulnerable sub-populations. NAMs can provide mechanistic understanding which  can be combined with scientific knowledge on human variability and used to identify the  drivers of susceptibility within the population, so providing a more powerful and future-proof  scientific assessment.  • The use of NAMs for complementing existing animal data and fulfilling data gaps during the  risk assessment process offers new opportunities for collaboration between risk assessors  and academic researchers. The co-design of NAMs-based Integrated Assessment and Testing  Strategies (IATA) and also AOPs for selected case studies of EFSA interest, and the  incorporation of the results in EFSA regulatory assessments, will introduce risk assessors to  the use of results from new toxicological tools and promote the interest of researchers in  regulatory assessments. • Several substances falling within EFSA’s domain of activity have received significant  attention from researchers developing NAMs. A large majority of recent publications on  substances with public attention such as bisphenol A, phthalates, glyphosate, etc., as well  as nano and advanced materials such as titanium dioxide, include the generation of NAMs  data. The pressure from researchers, stakeholders and risk assessors for a transparent  assessment of “all” existing scientific information, not just guideline studies, is increasing.  This situation offers EFSA and its risk assessment network, the opportunity for contributing  to PARC and other initiatives, by developing clear recommendations for facilitating the use  of these studies in the regulatory context.  Cooperation: