Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jun;123(6):507-14.
doi: 10.1289/ehp.1409149. Epub 2015 Feb 24.

IARC monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans

Neil Pearce  1 , 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
Affiliations

IARC monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans

Neil Pearce et al. Environ Health Perspect. 2015 Jun.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

M. Stenzel is employed by Exposure Assessment Applications LLC (Arlington, VA, USA). P. Stewart is employed by Stewart Exposure Assessments LLC (Arlington, VA, USA). S.H. Zahm is employed by Shelia Zahm Consulting (Hermon, ME, USA), and she has served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in U.S. litigation involving polychlorinated biphenyls and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. J. Huff has served as an expert witness for plaintiffs in U.S. litigation involving exposures to acrylamide and to styrene and carcinogenicity. B. Armstrong was formerly Deputy Director of IARC (1991–1993), and J. Huff and H. Vainio have previously served as head of the IARC Monographs Program. Most (but not all) other authors have served on IARC Monograph Working groups, and several have worked for IARC in the past. Although P. Bertazzi is Director of a Department that has research and consultancy contracts with industry (including petrochemical, plastics, iron, and steel, and other chemicals), as well as governmental, private, and nonprofit agencies, he has no affiliation with industry; he has served in Italy as an expert in medical legal cases involving asbestos exposure and asbestos-induced disease and prepared reports on causation and diagnosis of asbestos-related disorders for courts. D. Christiani, J. Dement, and A. Smith have served as expert witnesses in U.S. litigation involving asbestos exposure and disease outcomes, including cancer. E. Fontham is a Senior Research Fellow at the International Prevention Research Institute. P. Comba, P. Forastiere, E. Merler, F. Merletti, R. Pirastu, B. Terracini, and P. Vineis have acted as consultants to prosecutors and judges in a number of court case trials. F. Mirer has received compensation as a consultant to the AFL-CIO and the UAW in support of litigation. E. Weiderpass is currently a member of the IARC Scientific Council. The other authors declare they have no actual or potential competing financial interests.

References

    1. Ahlbom A, Axelson O, Støttrup Hansen ES, Hogstedt C, Jensen J, Olsen J. Interpretation of “negative studies” in occupational epidemiology. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1990;16:153–157. - PubMed
    1. Blair A, Saracci R, Vineis P, Cocco P, Forastiere F, Grandjean P, et al. 2009Epidemiology, public health, and the rhetoric of false positives. Environ Health Perspect 1171809–1813.; 10.1289/ehp.0901194 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boffetta P, McLaughlin JK, La Vecchia C, Tarone RE, Lipworth L, Blot WJ. False-positive results in cancer epidemiology: a plea for epistemological modesty. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:988–995. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boffetta P, McLaughlin JK, La Vecchia C, Tarone RE, Lipworth L, Blot WJ. Authors’ response. A further plea for adherence to the principles underlying science in general and the epidemiologic enterprise in particular. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38:678–679. - PubMed
    1. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. West Sussex, England: Wiley; 2009. Introduction to Meta-Analysis.

Publication types

Substances