IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
File(s)
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background: Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.
Objectives: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.
Discussion: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.
Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health.
Objectives: The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.
Discussion: We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.
Conclusions: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public’s health.
Date Issued
2015-02-24
Date Acceptance
2015-02-20
Citation
Environmental Health Perspectives, 2015, 123 (6), pp.507-514
ISSN
1552-9924
Publisher
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Start Page
507
End Page
514
Journal / Book Title
Environmental Health Perspectives
Volume
123
Issue
6
Copyright Statement
Reproduced from Environmental Health Perspectives. EHP is a publication of the U.S. Federal Government, and its content lies in the public domain.
Subjects
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Environmental Sciences
Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
Toxicology
Environmental Sciences & Ecology
PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING SCIENCE
PUBLIC-HEALTH
EPIDEMIOLOGIC ENTERPRISE
CANCER-EPIDEMIOLOGY
PLEA
POLICY
FALSE
ADHERENCE
PROGRAM
RECIPE
Biomedical Research
Carcinogens, Environmental
Humans
International Agencies
Neoplasms
Public Health
Publications
11 Medical And Health Sciences
05 Environmental Sciences
Publication Status
Published