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.
- Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC)
- Endocrine mode-of-action
- Weight of evidence
- Hazard assessment
- Risk characterization
Lamb, J. C. T., Boffetta, P., Foster, W. G., Goodman, J. E., Hentz, K. L., Rhomberg, L. R., Staveley, J., Swaen, G., Van Der Kraak, G., & Williams, A. L. (2015). 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). Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 73(3), 754-757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.10.029