Send message to Authors

Short abstract

This paper analyzes Europe's transition from animal testing to New Approach Methodologies. It finds a "frontstage" coalition on NAMs as a technical upgrade, while "backstage" disagreements persist about goals and NAMs' limits. This representation traps chemical safety in "captured futures."

Long abstract

This paper focuses on the ongoing transition from animal testing to New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in regulatory risk assessments in Europe. Understanding actors’ views on the rationales behind the transition and what it will take to achieve it is important, as they constitute a critical part of collective future-making of chemical safety. Using Bacchi's (2025) 'What is the problem represented to be?' framework, we explore how different actors in the “pro-NAMs” community, including regulators, toxicologists, NGOs, and policymakers represent what the transition is about, and what it takes to facilitate it. We show that the transition discourses can be analyzed using a frontstage–backstage distinction. On the front stage, a discourse coalition has been formed representing the problem as one of knowledge production, technology transfer, and scientific norms. Lurking in the backstage are issues on which actors diverge, including the long-term goal of the transition and lack of address of the limitations of NAMs. An overly positive future enabled by NAMs is being painted, although the back-stage discourse reveals that this future remains highly uncertain. Regardless of what is displayed where, radical reimagining of chemical safety futures, for instance reducing the use of toxic chemicals rather than continuing to focus on levels of acceptable risk, remains excluded. We argue that to get out of this crisis of imagination, or ‘captured futures’ (Hajer and Oomen 2025) of chemical safety, not only should a different discursive regime be installed, but alternative ways of co-producing non-hegemonic futures also need to be practiced.