IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Neil Pearce, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; Aaron Blair, National Institutes of Health (NIH); Paolo Vineis, Imperial College London; Wolfgang Ahrens, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology; Aage Andersen, Cancer Registry of Norway; Josep M. Anto, Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF); Bruce K. Armstrong, University of Sydney; Andrea A. Baccarelli, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; Frederick A. Beland, National Center for Toxicological Research; Amy Berrington, National Institutes of Health (NIH); Pier Alberto Bertazzi, University of Milan; Linda S. Birnbaum, National Institutes of Health (NIH); Ross C. Brownson, Washington University; John R. Bucher, National Institutes of Health (NIH); Kenneth P. Cantor, KP Cantor Environmental LLC; Elisabeth Cardis, CREAL; John W. Cherrie, Institute of Occupational Medicine; David C. Christiani, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; Pierluigi Cocco, University of Cagliari-Monserrato; David Coggon, University of Southampton; Pietro Comba, “Charles Darwin” Sapienza Rome University; Paul A. Demers, Cancer Care Ontario; John M. Dement, Duke University; Jeroen Douwes, Massey University; Ellen A. Eisen, University of California Berkeley; Lawrence S. Engel, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Richard A. Fenske, University of Washington; Lora E. Fleming, University of Exeter; Tony Fletcher, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Elizabeth Fontham, Louisiana State University; Francesco Forastiere, Lazio Regional Health Service; Rainer Frentzel-Beyme, Universität Bremen; Lin Fritschi, Curtin University; Michel Gerin, Universite de Montreal; Marcel Goldberg, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts Unit; Philippe Grandjean, University of Southern Denmark; Tom K. Grimsrud, Cancer Registry of Norway; Per Gustavsson, Karolinska Institutet; Andy Haines, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Patricia Hartge, National Institutes of Health (NIH); Johnni Hansen, Danish Cancer Society Research Center; Michael Hauptmann, Netherlands Cancer Institute; Dick Heederik, Utrecht University; Kari Hemminki, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ); Denis Hemon, Paris Descartes University; Irva Hertz-Picciotto, University of California Davis; Jane A. Hoppin, North Carolina State University; James Huff, National Institutes of Health (NIH); Bengt Jarvholm, Umea University; Daehee Kang, Seoul National University; Margaret R. Karagas, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth; Kristina Kjaerheim, Cancer Registry of Norway; Helge Kjuus, National Institute of Occupational Health; Manolis Kogevinas, CREAL; David Kriebel, University of Massachusetts Lowell; Petter Kristensen, National Institute of Occupational Health; Hans Kromhout, Utrecht University; Francine Laden, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; Pierre Lebailly, Universite de Caen; Grace LeMasters, University of Cincinnati; Jay H. Lubin, National Institutes of Health (NIH); Charles F. Lynch, University of Iowa; Elsebeth Lynge, University of Copenhagen; Andrea 't Mannetje, Massey University; Anthony J. McMichael, Australian National University; John R. McLaughlin, Public Health Ontario; Loraine Marrett, University of Toronto; Marco Martuzzi, European Centre for Environment and Health; James A. Merchant, University of Iowa; Enzo Merler, Local Health Authority, Padova; Franco Merletti, University of Turin; Anthony Miller, University of Toronto; Franklin E. Mirer, City University of New York; Richard Monson, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; Karl-Cristian Nordby, National Institute of Occupational Health; Andrew F. Olshan, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Marie-Elise Parent, Universite du Quebec; Frederica P. Perera, Columbia University; Melissa J. Perry, George Washington University; Angela Cecilia Pesatori, University of Milan; Roberta Pirastu, "Charles Darwin" Sapienza Rome University; Miquel Porta, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; Eero Pukkala, Finnish Cancer Registry; Carol Rice, University of Cincinnati; David B. Richardson, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Leonard Ritter, University of Guelph; Beate Ritz, University of California Los Angeles; Cecile M. Ronckers, Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center; Lesley Rushton, Imperial College London; Jennifer A. Rusiecki, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences; Ivan Rusyn, Texas A&M University; Jonathan M. Samet, University of Southern California; Dale P. Sandler, National Institutes of Health (NIH); Silvia de Sanjose, Catalan Institute of Oncology; Eva Schernhammer, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; Adele S. Costantini, Canc Prevention & Research Institute ISPO; Noah Seixas, University of Washington; Carl Shy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Jack Siemiatycki, Universite de Montreal; Debra T. Silverman, National Institutes of Health (NIH); Lorenzo Simonato, University of Padova; Allan H. Smith, University of California Berkeley; Martyn T. Smith, University of California Berkeley; John J. Spinelli, University of British Columbia; Margaret R. Spitz, Baylor College of Medicine; Lorann Stallones, Colorado State University; Leslie T. Stayner, University of Illinois at Chicago; Kyle Steenland, Emory University; Mark Stenzel, Exposure Assessment Applications LLC; Bernard W. Stewart, South East Sydney Public Health Unit; Patricia A. Stewart, Stewart Exposure Assessments LLC; Elaine Symanski, University of Texas; Benedetto Terracini, University of Torino and Centro di Riferimento per l’Epidemiologia e la Prevenzione Oncologica; Paige Tolbert, Emory University; Harri Vainio, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; John Vena, Medical University of South Carolina; Roel Vermeulen, Utrecht University; Cesar G. Victora, Universdade Federal de Pelotas; Elizabeth M. Ward, American Cancer Society Inc; Clarice R. Weinberg, National Institutes of Health (NIH); Dennis Weisenburger, City of Hope National Medical Center; Catharina Wesseling, Karolinska Institutet; Elisabete Weiderpass, UiT the Arctic University of Norway; Shelia Hoar Zahm, Shelia Zahm Consulting
• Language: English
• Date: 2015-06-01
• Publisher: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © 2015, Public Health Services, US Dept of Health and Human Services. All rights reserved.
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409149
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: Environmental Health Perspectives
• ISSN: 0091-6765
• Volume: 123
• Issue: 6
• Start Page: 507
• End Page: 514
• Grant/Funding Information: This work was conducted with no direct funding, but was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH (NCI and NIEHS).
• Keywords: PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING SCIENCE; CANCER-EPIDEMIOLOGY; PROGRAM; PUBLIC-HEALTH; ADHERENCE; RECIPE; EPIDEMIOLOGIC ENTERPRISE; Environmental Sciences & Ecology; Science & Technology; FALSE; POLICY; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; Environmental Sciences; PLEA; Toxicology
• Research Categories: Health Sciences, Public Health; Health Sciences, Epidemiology; Health Sciences, Toxicology

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.