Abstract:
We present a detailed response to the critique of “State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
2012” (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim
that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on
incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate
description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow
standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as
flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the
BradfordeHill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from
empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013)
report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific
community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/
WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately
familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias
and subjectivity.
