Comments on the opinions published by Bergman et al. (2015) on Critical Comments on the WHO-UNEP State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (Lamb et al., 2014)

J.C.t. Lamb, P. Boffetta, W.G. Foster, J.E. Goodman, K.L. Hentz, L.R. Rhomberg, J. Staveley, G. Swaen, G. Van Der Kraak, A.L. Williams

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review


Recently Bergman et al. (2015) took issue with our comments (Lamb et al., 2014) on the WHO-UNEP(1) report entitled the "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals - 2012" (WHO 2013a). We find several key differences between their view and ours regarding the selection of studies and presentation of data related to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) under the WHO-IPCS(2) definition (2002). In this response we address the factors that we think are most important: 1. the difference between hazard and risk; 2. the different approaches for hazard identification (weight of the evidence [WOE] vs. emphasizing positive findings over null results); and 3. the lack of a justification for conceptual or practical differences between EDCs and other groups of agents.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)754-757
Number of pages4
JournalRegulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2015


  • Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC)
  • Endocrine mode-of-action
  • Weight of evidence
  • Hazard assessment
  • Risk characterization

Cite this