Add to ORKGThe "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. © 2013 Bergman et al.; lic...
To what extent do substances have the potential to cause adverse health effects through an endocrine...
We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chem...
Recently Bergman et al. (2015) took issue with our comments (Lamb et al., 2014) on the WHO-UNEP(1) r...
The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endo...
The “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endo...
The “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endo...
The “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endo...
Jurisdictions around the world are currently developing regulation to manage endocrine disruptors (E...
Early in 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a 2012 update to the 2002 State of the S...
AbstractEarly in 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a 2012 update to the 2002 State ...
In the past, scientists were usually considered trustworthy by default. More recently, a shift to a ...
We, the undersigned editors of prominent journals of pharmacology and toxicology, are drawing your a...
Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, k...
Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, k...
We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chem...
To what extent do substances have the potential to cause adverse health effects through an endocrine...
We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chem...
Recently Bergman et al. (2015) took issue with our comments (Lamb et al., 2014) on the WHO-UNEP(1) r...
The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endo...
The “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endo...
The “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endo...
The “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endo...
Jurisdictions around the world are currently developing regulation to manage endocrine disruptors (E...
Early in 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a 2012 update to the 2002 State of the S...
AbstractEarly in 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a 2012 update to the 2002 State ...
In the past, scientists were usually considered trustworthy by default. More recently, a shift to a ...
We, the undersigned editors of prominent journals of pharmacology and toxicology, are drawing your a...
Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, k...
Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, k...
We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chem...
To what extent do substances have the potential to cause adverse health effects through an endocrine...
We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chem...
Recently Bergman et al. (2015) took issue with our comments (Lamb et al., 2014) on the WHO-UNEP(1) r...