In a non-peer-reviewed venue (Nature 535, 355; 2016), Daniel Dietrich et al. put forward apparently unsubstantiated arguments that in effect dismiss thousands of peer-reviewed academic studies and rigorous evaluations of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) by independent scientists and organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Environment Programme, the Endocrine Society and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (see, for example, go.nature.com/2adgma2).

Identification of hazards associated with EDCs relies on randomized mechanistic studies in animals and observational epidemiological studies in humans. Randomized trials of direct chemical exposures in humans present serious ethical and other challenges. Using approaches developed by the WHO and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to account for the totality of the laboratory and human evidence and assess the strength of the evidence, the costs of continued inaction on EDCs are estimated to be more than €150 billion (US$167 billion) annually (L. Trasande et al. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 100, 1245–1255; 2015).

Proactive prevention measures backed by strong scientific criteria are therefore needed to prevent disease and disability across the life course. Regulatory decision-making should rely on peer-reviewed research to evaluate EDCs (L. Trasande et al. J. Epidemiol. Comm. Health http://doi.org/bm5q; 2016). Many of us have productively worked to achieve scientific consensus for the proposed criteria for EDCs in Europe (see go.nature.com/2awvrsn). In our view, Dietrich et al. do nothing to advance the debate or scientific knowledge on this important human health issue.