IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans

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.Citation: Pearce N, Blair A, Vineis P, Ahrens W, Andersen A, Anto JM, Armstrong BK, Baccarelli AA, Beland FA, Berrington A, Bertazzi PA, Birnbaum LS, Brownson RC, Bucher JR, Cantor KP, Cardis E, Cherrie JW, Christiani DC, Cocco P, Coggon D, Comba P, Demers PA, Dement JM, Douwes J, Eisen EA, Engel LS, Fenske RA, Fleming LE, Fletcher T, Fontham E, Forastiere F, Frentzel-Beyme R, Fritschi L, Gerin M, Goldberg M, Grandjean P, Grimsrud TK, Gustavsson P, Haines A, Hartge P, Hansen J, Hauptmann M, Heederik D, Hemminki K, Hemon D, Hertz-Picciotto I, Hoppin JA, Huff J, Jarvholm B, Kang D, Karagas MR, Kjaerheim K, Kjuus H, Kogevinas M, Kriebel D, Kristensen P, Kromhout H, Laden F, Lebailly P, LeMasters G, Lubin JH, Lynch CF, Lynge E, ‘t Mannetje A, McMichael AJ, McLaughlin JR, Marrett L, Martuzzi M, Merchant JA, Merler E, Merletti F, Miller A, Mirer FE, Monson R, Nordby KC, Olshan AF, Parent ME, Perera FP, Perry MJ, Pesatori AC, Pirastu R, Porta M, Pukkala E, Rice C, Richardson DB, Ritter L, Ritz B, Ronckers CM, Rushton L, Rusiecki JA, Rusyn I, Samet JM, Sandler DP, de Sanjose S, Schernhammer E, Seniori Costantini A, Seixas N, Shy C, Siemiatycki J, Silverman DT, Simonato L, Smith AH, Smith MT, Spinelli JJ, Spitz MR, Stallones L, Stayner LT, Steenland ...

Epigenetic alterations induced by genotoxic occupational and environmental human chemical carcinogens: A systematic literature review

“…We used the Health Assessment Workspace Collaborative (HAWC), a publically available online tool (https://hawcproject.org) for curating published literature for the assessment of chemicals or groups of chemicals. The review focused on human carcinogens as classified by the IARC [14]. As of 2015, there are 118 agents classified as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1) by IARC (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php).…”

Use of high-throughput in vitro toxicity screening data in cancer hazard evaluations by IARC Monograph Working Groups

“…In the 45 years since its inception, well over 100 Monograph Volumes have been published on over 980 agents (Pearce et al, 2015). The process for characterizing the evidence for causation is described in the Preamble and the Instructions to Authors for each Monograph Volume (International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group, 2006; International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2016).…”

Scientific Issues Relevant to Setting Regulatory Criteria to Identify Endocrine-Disrupting Substances in the European Union

“…There are also great uncertainties as to the number of substances likely to be identified as EDs. However, as demonstrated by the 40 years of work by the International Agency for Research on Cancer to identify carcinogens (Pearce et al 2015), the availability of a clear definition of the hazard considered is a necessary first step. Once defining criteria are available, one can develop appropriate testing methods, identify substances, and manage risk.…”