IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

Details

• Personal Author:
  Ahrens W ; Andersen A ; Anto JM ; Armstrong BK ; Baccarelli AA ; Beland FA ; Berrington A ; Bertazzi, Pier A. ; Birnbaum LS ; Blair, Austin ; Brownson RC ; Bucher JR ; Cantor KP ; Cardis E ; Cherrie JW ; Christiani, David C. ; Cocco P ; Coggon D ; Comba, Paul ; Dement, John M. ; Demers PA ; Douwes J ; Eisen EA ; Engel LS ; Fenske RA ; Fleming, Lora E. ; Fletcher T ; Fontham E ; Forastiere F ; Frentzel-Beyme R ; Fritschi L ; Gerin M ; Goldberg M ; Grandjean P ; Grimsrud TK ; Gustavsson P ; Haines A ; Hansen J ; Hartge P ; Hauptmann M ; Heederik D ; Hemminki K ; Hemon D ; Hertz-Picciotto I ; Hoppin JA ; Huff J ; Jarvholm B ; Kang, Daehee ; Karagas MR ; Kjaerheim K ; Kjuus H ; Kogevinas M ; Kriebel D ; Kristensen P ; Kromhout H ; Laden F ; Lebailly P ; LeMasters G ; Lubin JH ; Lynch CF ; Lynge E ; Marrett L ; Martuzzi M ; McLaughlin JR ; McMichael AJ ; Merchant, James A. ; Merler E ; Merletti F ; Miller, Aubrey K. ; Mirer FE ; Monson R ; Nordby K-C ; Olshan AF ; Parent M-E ; Pearce N ; Perera FP ; Perry MJ ; Pesatori AC ; Pirastu R ; Porta M ; 't Mannetje A ; Vineis P
• Description:
  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. [Description provided by NIOSH]
• Subjects:
  Carcinogens Occupational Health Public Health Safety
• Keywords:
  Process Control Public Health Research Productivity Risk Assessment
• ISSN:
  0091-6765
• Document Type:
  Text
• Funding:
  Grant
• Genre:
  Journal Article
• Place as Subject:
  Arkansas ; California ; District of Columbia ; Iowa ; Louisiana ; Maryland ; Massachusetts ; Missouri ; New Hampshire ; North Carolina ; Ohio ; OSHA Region 1 ; OSHA Region 10 ; OSHA Region 3 ; OSHA Region 4 ; OSHA Region 5 ; OSHA Region 6 ; OSHA Region 7 ; OSHA Region 9 ; Washington
• CIO:
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
• Topic:
  Workplace Safety & Health
• Location:
  North America
• Volume:
  123
• Issue:
  6
• NIOSHTIC Number:
  nn:20057237
• Citation:
  Environ Health Perspect 2015 Jun; 123(6):507-514
• Contact Point Address:
  N. Pearce, Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel St., London WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom
• Email:
  neil.pearce@lshtm.ac.uk
• Federal Fiscal Year:
  2015
• Performing Organization:
  University of Washington
• Peer Reviewed:
  True
• Start Date:
  20050701
• Source Full Name:
  Environmental Health Perspectives
• End Date:
  20250630
• Collection(s):
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:087cd74e4446775c536e1649bf5e85ad81e51e4a4c2a470628e1e65f7d70e27a5bfb71b473901b5411c2856878b4743a50a338f121c6fbe411140f30e81b69c0
• Download URL:
  https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/214656/cdc_214656_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 144.46 KB ]