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

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


Recently Bergman et al. (2015) took issue with our comments (Lamb et al., 2014) on the WHO-UNEP1 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-IPCS2 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.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles