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 language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 754-757 |
Number of pages | 4 |
Journal | Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology |
Volume | 73 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Dec 2015 |
Keywords
- Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC)
- Endocrine mode-of-action
- Weight of evidence
- Hazard assessment
- Risk characterization
- RISK-ASSESSMENT
- CHEMICALS