Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based on hazard identification serve science and society

Loomis, Dana; Guyton, Kathryn Z.; Straif, Kurt; Wild, Christopher P.

doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.02.010

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…36 Some of the current controversy over IARC's classification schemes for carcinogenicity is due to ambiguity in public understanding of hazard versus risk. [39][40][41] An agent is considered a cancer hazard if it is capable of causing cancer under some circumstances. The Monographs Programme may identify cancer hazards even when risks are very low with known patterns of use or exposure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An approximated one-quarter of IARC Group 3 (unclassifiable) chemicals fit more appropriately into IARC Group 4 (probably not carcinogenic)

Smith

Perfetti²

2019

Toxicology Research and Application

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies agents as to their potential carcinogenicity in humans. Monographs 1-123 categorize 120 agents as group 1 (carcinogenic to humans); 82 agents as group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans); 311 agents as group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans); 499 agents as group 3 (not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans); but only a single agent, caprolactam, a precursor for the manufacture of Nylon 6, fibers, and plastic as group 4 (probably not carcinogenic to humans). The evidence regarding carcinogenic potential to humans for a randomly selected sample of 100 group 3 agents was studied to determine whether the paucity of agents classified as group 4 represented the state of the scientific evidence or a reluctance on the part of IARC to classify a chemical into the lowest risk category. Of the 100 agents evaluated, a significant minority estimated at 24% did not possess structural elements of carcinogenicity, mutagenic activity in the Ames Salmonella assay or activity in a cell transformation assay. The results of this analysis suggest that the lack of agents classified as group 4 represents a reluctance on the part of IARC to place agents into the lowest category of risk. Failure to appropriately place agents into group 4 unnecessarily exhausts valuable staff resources as these low risk compounds require periodic updating of the evidentiary basis of their classification as a group 3 agent. It would be advantageous for both IARC and public health agencies if a clearer differentiation of group 3 and group 4 agents was employed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An approximated one-quarter of IARC Group 3 (unclassifiable) chemicals fit more appropriately into IARC Group 4 (probably not carcinogenic)

Smith

Perfetti²

2019

Toxicology Research and Application

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although a monograph elaborated by a group of experts adds to the literature available for decision makers, the purpose and usefulness of cancer hazard-based classification categories remain unclear. In a response to a criticism about the IARC classification scheme (Boobis et al, 2016), experts from the agency staff (Loomis et al, 2017) argued that hazard identification provides "..a vital platform for the subsequent steps of risk assessment and management". There is no doubt that hazard identification is the initial step of risk assessment and management.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The disagreement between the IARC and regulatory agencies over the carcinogenicity of GLY was promptly echoed by many experts in academia and industry, and gave rise to reviews, letters and position papers (Boobis et al, 2016;Portier et al, 2016;Loomis et al, 2017;Portier, Clausing, 2017;Tarazona et al, 2017a;.…”

Section: The Emergence Of the Controversy On Glyphosate Carcinogenicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

To be or not to be a carcinogen; delving into the glyphosate classification controversy

Paumgartten

2019

Braz. J. Pharm. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hazard Identification and Assessment

Nordberg

Fowler

2019

Risk Assessment for Human Metal Exposures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based on hazard identification serve science and society

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

An approximated one-quarter of IARC Group 3 (unclassifiable) chemicals fit more appropriately into IARC Group 4 (probably not carcinogenic)

An approximated one-quarter of IARC Group 3 (unclassifiable) chemicals fit more appropriately into IARC Group 4 (probably not carcinogenic)

To be or not to be a carcinogen; delving into the glyphosate classification controversy

Hazard Identification and Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About