The Future of the Weight‐of‐Evidence Approach: A Response to Suter's Comments

Abstract

© 2021 The Authors. Authors’ Response: We are grateful to Suter (2021) for noting our effort (Johnson et al., 2021) and for the role that he and his co-workers have played (and continue to play) in championing the weight-of-evidence (WoE) approach. As Suter has pointed out, the field is far from stagnant and enjoys continuing debate within parts of the community (Suter, 2021). With regard to his response to our article, we see no reason to criticize the Hill criteria (Hill, 1965) but find that, while agreeing with Suter that they are not a perfect fit for our field, they are of enduring value and are readily adaptable.

We consider that there remain a number of issues that both hinder the take-up of WoE and have yet to be resolved in the decision-making process over whether a chemical is a threat or not. We suggest reasons behind the worldwide poor take-up of WoE.