Search

The IARC monograph program on Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks must be reformed and brought into the 21st century – or it should be abolished

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monograph program is an outmoded cancer classification scheme that has remained fundamentally unchanged since the monograph program was established in the early 1970s. In the intervening 45 years, scientific understanding of cancer causation has deepened and provided decision makers with an evolving appreciation of how effects seen in laboratory animals should be used to protect human health. Conceptual and experimental breakthroughs in cancer causation have been incorporated by the World Health Organization International Programme on...

Christopher Wild, Ph.D., has been the director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) since 2009 and during his tenure, the organization has been controversial. With recent rulings on bacon, coffee, and a mildly toxic pesticide, all of which have come down in defiance of every legitimate science body, there have been calls for Wild to resign or be fired from the once-respected body.

He has avoided being terminated but he leaves behind a group with a reputation far removed from the original IARC, whose first director, Dr. John Higginson, was so prestigious among the cancer community he was on the board of the American Council on Science and Health. Like the Council, the original IARC wanted to separate health threats from health scares. Under Wild, they use...

With the term of controversial International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Director Christopher Wild thankfully at an end, speculation about the new head of the embattled UN agency was rampant, probably for the first time in its history.

The reason there was so much concern is simple: They have lost their way. They no longer do science, they do activism and call it epidemiology. The inmates in epidemiology, from Martyn Smith to Chris Portier, have been running the asylum, they have exploited IARC's bizarre 'five orders of magnitude for dose determines hazard' to get pet causes for trial lawyers a veil of legitimacy, and the public and government agencies no longer trust it. Before making any decisions on its funding future, U.S. policymakers wanted to know if IARC was...

iarc-gradedThanks to Angela Logomasini s Safe Chemical Policy News, we learned of another academic organization s disdain for the methods used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the WHO, in their process of evaluating the widely-used herbicide, glyphosate, among other pesticides.

Better known as Roundup by Monsanto, glyphosate has been increasingly used subsequent to the development of GMOs resistant to the chemical: such plants are roundup-ready, being immune to its weed-killing...

The first director of IARC (the International Agency for Research on Cancer), Dr. John Higginson, was also a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health Those were the glory days of IARC, which was founded for the purpose of identifying human carcinogens for further study and to guide health policy.

Unfortunately, much has changed since 1965. Fifty-two years after its inception, IARC has become a fringe group, seemingly more interested in scaring people than identifying actual health threats. Any organization that declares bacon to be as dangerous as plutonium has entirely lost its way.

Things started to unravel for...

In June 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published their findings on coffee, mate and hot beverages and their role in carcinogenesis. [1] Their most contentious claim, discussed previously by my colleagues, was that “drinking very hot beverages probably causes cancer of the esophagus in humans.So when our preprint source had this headline, “Drinking hot tea associated with a 5-fold increased risk for esophageal cancer” I felt that IARC, like the proverbial blind squirrel, had found its nut. Unfortunately, the headline is very, very misleading.

The prospective study is from China which has both a high incidence of esophageal...

"[CSPI] has just declared that all that cheese and meaty topping should have only a cameo appearance in a meal, not a starring role. The 'good news' is that they strongly endorse pizza with little or no cheese and lots of vegetables instead of sausage or pepperoni. Isn't that called 'salad'?"

Holly Love, writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer (brought to our attention by http://www.ConsumerFreedom.com ). Also see ACSH's press release on CSPI's pizza report.

In 2015, the American Council on Science and Health joined every reputable science body in being critical of yet another International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monograph. In recent years they had become prone to selectively choosing studies to include in their analyses, almost as if they predetermined a conclusion and then found studies to match it.

In March of that year, the latest head-scratcher was about a compound known as glyphosate, a popular herbicide of moderate toxicity that had been used safely without issue for decades and been re-registered by the U.S. EPA many times. Though there was no evidence of any harm (in humans, weeds hate it) the IARC ...

Sometimes, things just don't make sense. Recommendations on what causes cancer should not be one of them. However, most major news outlets ran headlines this past June claiming that "hot drinks probably cause cancer" based on a letter that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published in the Lancet.

But, when you take a minute, (before we all start drinking our coffee lukewarm) and take a look into the letter, it becomes apparent that there is no science that supports this statement.

The majority of the letter is concerned with whether coffee causes cancer or not (it doesn't.) The last time that coffee was reviewed by IARC was in 1991, when it was classified as “...

Glyphosate, a component of the popular herbicide commonly known as Roundup in the United States, has been placed on California's Proposition 65 list, which requires a cancer warning label on it. It now joins products like coffee, where a Prop 65 warning label is ubiquitous in every Starbucks, in baffling tourists with how silly our labels are.

After all, if it causes cancer, just ban it. Right?

That's the problem. No regulatory body can find evidence it harms anyone or anything other than what it is supposed to harm, much less that it causes any cancer in people.

How is a system designed to protect California citizens...