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

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

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
Volume73
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2015

Keywords

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

Cite this