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 the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures 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 paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.
DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline 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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Environmental Health Perspectives |
| Volume | 123 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Pages (from-to) | 507-514 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| ISSN | 0091-6765 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2015 |
Access to Document
- 10.1289/ehp.1409149Licence: Unspecified
Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans. / Pearce, Neil E; Blair, Aaron; Vineis, Paolo; Ahrens, Wolfgang; Andersen, Aage; Anto, Josep M; Armstrong, Bruce K; Baccarelli, Andrea A; Beland, Frederick A; Berrington, Amy; Bertazzi, Pier A; Birnbaum, Linda S; Brownson, Ross C; Bucher, John R; Cantor, Kenneth P; Cardis, Elisabeth; Cherrie, John W; Christiani, David C; Cocco, Pierluigi; Coggon, David; Comba, Pietro; Demers, Paul A; Dement, John M; Douwes, Jeroen; Eisen, Ellen A; Engel, Lawrence S; Fenske, Richard A; Fleming, Lora E; Fletcher, Tony; Fontham, Elizabeth; Forastiere, Francesco; Frentzel-Beyme, Rainer; Fritschi, Lin; Gerin, Michel; Goldberg, Marcel; Grandjean, Philippe; Grimsrud, Tom K; Gustavsson, Per; Haines, Andy; Hartge, Patricia; Hansen, Johnni; Hauptmann, Michael; Heederik, Dick; Hemminki, Kari; Hemon, Denis; Hertz-Picciotto, Irva; Hoppin, Jane A; Huff, James; Jarvholm, Bengt; Kang, Daehee; Karagas, Margaret R; Kjaerheim, Kristina; Kjuus, Helge; Kogevinas, Manolis; Kriebel, David; Kristensen, Petter; Kromhout, Hans; Laden, Francine; Lebailly, Pierre; LeMasters, Grace; Lubin, Jay H; Lynch, Charles F; Lynge, Elsebeth; 't Mannetje, Andrea; McMichael, Anthony J; McLaughlin, John R; Marrett, Loraine; Martuzzi, Marco; Merchant, James A; Merler, Enzo; Merletti, Franco; Miller, Anthony; Mirer, Franklin E; Monson, Richard; Nordby, Karl-Kristian; Olshan, Andrew F; Parent, Marie-Elise; Perera, Frederica P; Perry, Melissa J; Pesatori, Angela C; Pirastu, Roberta; Porta, Miquel; Pukkala, Eero; Rice, Carol; Richardson, David B; Ritter, Leonard; Ritz, Beate; Ronckers, Cecile M; Rushton, Lesley; Rusiecki, Jennifer A; Rusyn, Ivan; Samet, Jonathan M; Sandler, Dale P; de Sanjose, Silvia; Schernhammer, Eva; Seniori Constantini, Adele; Seixas, Noah; Shy, Carl; Siemiatycki, Jack; Silvermann, Debra T; Simonato, Lorenzo; Smith, Allan H; Smith, Martyn T; Spinelli, John J; Spitz, Margaret R; Stallones, Lorann; Stayner, Leslie T; Steenland, Kyle; Stenzel, Mark; Stewart, Bernard W; Stewart, Patricia A; Symanski, Elaine; Terracini, Benedetto; Tolbert, Paige E; Vainio, Harri; Vena, John; Vermeulen, Roel; Victora, Cesar G; Ward, Elizabeth M; Weinberg, Clarice R; Weisenburger, Dennis; Wesseling, Catharina; Weiderpass, Elisabete; Zahm, Shelia H.
In: Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 123, No. 6, 06.2015, p. 507-514.Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › Research › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - IARC Monographs
T2 - 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
AU - Pearce, Neil E
AU - Blair, Aaron
AU - Vineis, Paolo
AU - Ahrens, Wolfgang
AU - Andersen, Aage
AU - Anto, Josep M
AU - Armstrong, Bruce K
AU - Baccarelli, Andrea A
AU - Beland, Frederick A
AU - Berrington, Amy
AU - Bertazzi, Pier A
AU - Birnbaum, Linda S
AU - Brownson, Ross C
AU - Bucher, John R
AU - Cantor, Kenneth P
AU - Cardis, Elisabeth
AU - Cherrie, John W
AU - Christiani, David C
AU - Cocco, Pierluigi
AU - Coggon, David
AU - Comba, Pietro
AU - Demers, Paul A
AU - Dement, John M
AU - Douwes, Jeroen
AU - Eisen, Ellen A
AU - Engel, Lawrence S
AU - Fenske, Richard A
AU - Fleming, Lora E
AU - Fletcher, Tony
AU - Fontham, Elizabeth
AU - Forastiere, Francesco
AU - Frentzel-Beyme, Rainer
AU - Fritschi, Lin
AU - Gerin, Michel
AU - Goldberg, Marcel
AU - Grandjean, Philippe
AU - Grimsrud, Tom K
AU - Gustavsson, Per
AU - Haines, Andy
AU - Hartge, Patricia
AU - Hansen, Johnni
AU - Hauptmann, Michael
AU - Heederik, Dick
AU - Hemminki, Kari
AU - Hemon, Denis
AU - Hertz-Picciotto, Irva
AU - Hoppin, Jane A
AU - Huff, James
AU - Jarvholm, Bengt
AU - Kang, Daehee
AU - Karagas, Margaret R
AU - Kjaerheim, Kristina
AU - Kjuus, Helge
AU - Kogevinas, Manolis
AU - Kriebel, David
AU - Kristensen, Petter
AU - Kromhout, Hans
AU - Laden, Francine
AU - Lebailly, Pierre
AU - LeMasters, Grace
AU - Lubin, Jay H
AU - Lynch, Charles F
AU - Lynge, Elsebeth
AU - 't Mannetje, Andrea
AU - McMichael, Anthony J
AU - McLaughlin, John R
AU - Marrett, Loraine
AU - Martuzzi, Marco
AU - Merchant, James A
AU - Merler, Enzo
AU - Merletti, Franco
AU - Miller, Anthony
AU - Mirer, Franklin E
AU - Monson, Richard
AU - Nordby, Karl-Kristian
AU - Olshan, Andrew F
AU - Parent, Marie-Elise
AU - Perera, Frederica P
AU - Perry, Melissa J
AU - Pesatori, Angela C
AU - Pirastu, Roberta
AU - Porta, Miquel
AU - Pukkala, Eero
AU - Rice, Carol
AU - Richardson, David B
AU - Ritter, Leonard
AU - Ritz, Beate
AU - Ronckers, Cecile M
AU - Rushton, Lesley
AU - Rusiecki, Jennifer A
AU - Rusyn, Ivan
AU - Samet, Jonathan M
AU - Sandler, Dale P
AU - de Sanjose, Silvia
AU - Schernhammer, Eva
AU - Seniori Constantini, Adele
AU - Seixas, Noah
AU - Shy, Carl
AU - Siemiatycki, Jack
AU - Silvermann, Debra T
AU - Simonato, Lorenzo
AU - Smith, Allan H
AU - Smith, Martyn T
AU - Spinelli, John J
AU - Spitz, Margaret R
AU - Stallones, Lorann
AU - Stayner, Leslie T
AU - Steenland, Kyle
AU - Stenzel, Mark
AU - Stewart, Bernard W
AU - Stewart, Patricia A
AU - Symanski, Elaine
AU - Terracini, Benedetto
AU - Tolbert, Paige E
AU - Vainio, Harri
AU - Vena, John
AU - Vermeulen, Roel
AU - Victora, Cesar G
AU - Ward, Elizabeth M
AU - Weinberg, Clarice R
AU - Weisenburger, Dennis
AU - Wesseling, Catharina
AU - Weiderpass, Elisabete
AU - Zahm, Shelia H
PY - 2015/6
Y1 - 2015/6
N2 - 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 the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures 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 paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline 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.
AB - 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 the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures 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 paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline 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.
U2 - 10.1289/ehp.1409149
DO - 10.1289/ehp.1409149
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 25712798
VL - 123
SP - 507
EP - 514
JO - Environmental Health Perspectives
JF - Environmental Health Perspectives
SN - 0091-6765
IS - 6
ER -