Letter: Clarifying doubt about endocrine-related science.

February 18, 2016 Professor Gio Batta Gori Editor, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 525B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA. Professor Gori, We are writing on behalf of four associations to express our regret and concern regarding the comments made towards the crop protection industry in the December 2015 commentary by Bergman et al. (2015) entitled “Manufacturing Doubt About Endocrine-Related Science e A Rebuttal of Industry-Sponsored Critical Comments on the WHO/UNEP Report ‘State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012.’” These associations include CropLife International, the European Crop Protection Association, CropLife America and CropLife Canada. Bergman et al. responded to a publication by Lamb et al. (2014) which critiqued the WHO/UNEP report “State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals e 2012” (Bergman et al., 2013). While Lamb et al., responded to this commentary in December 2015 to address the scientific points raised by Bergman et al., the crop protection industry wishes to respond to their reputational accusations. Bergman et al. accused our industry of having a conflict of interest and suggested that our objective in supporting the Lamb et al. review was to deliberately mislead politicians and policymakers who may not have a detailed understanding of the issue of endocrine disruption. Bergman et al. further insinuated that our motive was to delay the implementation of European regulation on endocrine disruptors. We reject these assertions. We are surprised and disappointed that such claims were made in a peer-reviewed scientific journal with such high standing as Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Such journals should serve the purpose of enhancing scientific understanding. Despite what was insinuated by Bergman et al., the protection of human health and the environment is a key priority and a responsibility that the crop protection industry takes very seriously. We invest significant resources and time to demonstrate the safety of our products via a process that involves independent scrutiny by regulatory authorities. Our industry is strictly regulated and we constantly seek opportunities to improve safety. Contrary towhat was claimed by Bergman et al., we joined other industry associations to request the Lamb et al. review of theWHO/ UNEP 2012 report because we were concerned with the scientific methodology that was employed and uponwhich the report's conclusions were based. Our objective was to seek an independent