IARC monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans.

Authors:
Neil Pearce Aaron Blair Paolo Vineis Wolfgang Ahrens Aage Andersen Josep M Anto Bruce K Armstrong Andrea A Baccarelli Frederick A Beland Amy Berrington Pier Alberto Bertazzi Linda S Birnbaum Ross C Brownson John R Bucher Kenneth P Cantor Elisabeth Cardis John W Cherrie David C Christiani Pierluigi Cocco David Coggon Pietro Comba Paul A Demers John M Dement Jeroen Douwes Ellen A Eisen Lawrence S Engel Richard A Fenske Lora E Fleming Tony Fletcher Elizabeth Fontham Francesco Forastiere Rainer Frentzel-Beyme Lin Fritschi Michel Gerin Marcel Goldberg Philippe Grandjean Tom K Grimsrud Per Gustavsson Andy Haines Patricia Hartge Johnni Hansen Michael Hauptmann Dick Heederik Kari Hemminki Denis Hemon Irva Hertz-Picciotto Jane A Hoppin James Huff Bengt Jarvholm Daehee Kang Margaret R Karagas Kristina Kjaerheim Helge Kjuus Manolis Kogevinas David Kriebel Petter Kristensen Hans Kromhout Francine Laden Pierre Lebailly Grace LeMasters Jay H Lubin Charles F Lynch Elsebeth Lynge Andrea 't Mannetje Anthony J McMichael John R McLaughlin Loraine Marrett Marco Martuzzi James A Merchant Enzo Merler Franco Merletti Anthony Miller Franklin E Mirer Richard Monson Karl-Cristian Nordby Andrew F Olshan Marie-Elise Parent Frederica P Perera Melissa J Perry Angela Cecilia Pesatori Roberta Pirastu Miquel Porta Eero Pukkala Carol Rice David B Richardson Leonard Ritter Beate Ritz Cecile M Ronckers Lesley Rushton Jennifer A Rusiecki Ivan Rusyn Jonathan M Samet Dale P Sandler Silvia de Sanjose Eva Schernhammer Adele Seniori Costantini Noah Seixas Carl Shy Jack Siemiatycki Debra T Silverman Lorenzo Simonato Allan H Smith Martyn T Smith John J Spinelli Margaret R Spitz Lorann Stallones Leslie T Stayner Kyle Steenland Mark Stenzel Bernard W Stewart Patricia A Stewart Elaine Symanski Benedetto Terracini Paige E Tolbert Harri Vainio John Vena Roel Vermeulen Cesar G Victora Elizabeth M Ward Clarice R Weinberg Dennis Weisenburger Catharina Wesseling Elisabete Weiderpass Shelia Hoar Zahm

Environ Health Perspect 2015 Jun 24;123(6):507-14. Epub 2015 Feb 24.

Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409149DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455595PMC
June 2015
80 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

iarc
9
working groups
8
scientists disciplines
8
iarc evaluations
8
iarc monographs
8
process
5
evaluations
5
process determine
4
evaluation appropriate
4
classification process
4
criticisms iarc
4
iarc classification
4
support continued
4
continued review
4
determine validity
4
review
4
examination review
4
concerns examination
4
improved support
4
weight evidence
4

References

(Supplied by CrossRef)
Epidemiologists speak out about the challenge of false positives in cancer epidemiology.
Epidemiology Monitor et al.
Epidemiology Monitor 2012

Similar Publications