Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/125713
Title: Iarc Monographs: 40 Years Of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards To Humans
Author: Pearce, Neil
Blair, Aaron
Vineis, Paolo
Ahrens, Wolfgang
Andersen, Aage
Antó i Boqué, Josep Maria
Armstrong, Bruce K.
Baccarelli, Andrea A.
Beland, Frederick A.
Berrington, Amy
Bertazzi, Pier Alberto
Ritter, Leonard
Simonato, Lorenzo
Ritz, Beate
Ronckers, Cecile M.
Sanjosé Llongueras, Silvia de
Rushton, Lesley
Rusiecki, Jennifer A.
Rusyn, Ivan
Samet, Jonathan M.
Schernhammer, Eva
Stewart, Bernard W.
Seniori Costantini, Adele
Smith, Allan H.
Seixas, Noah
Shy, Carl
Siemiatycki, Jack
Silverman, Debra T.
Smith, Martyn T.
Vermeulen, Roel
Spinelli, John J.
Spitz, Margaret R.
Birnbaum, Linda S.
Stallones, Lorann
Stayner, Leslie T.
Steenland, Kyle
Stenzel, Mark
Stewart, Patricia A.
Symanski, Elaine
Victora, Cesar G.
Terracini, Benedetto
Tolbert, Paige E.
Vainio, Harri
Vena, John
Ward, Elizabeth M.
Comba, Pietro
Weinberg, Clarice R.
Brownson, Ross C.
Weisenburger, Dennis
Wesseling, Catharina
Weiderpass, Elisabete
Hoar Zahm, Shelia
Bucher, John R.
Fletcher, Tony
Cantor, Kenneth P.
Cardis, Elisabeth
Demers, Paul A.
Cherrie, John W.
Christiani, David C.
Cocco, Pierluigi
Coggon, David
Dement, John M.
Douwes, Jeroen
Fontham, Elizabeth
Eisen, Ellen A.
Engel, Lawrence S.
Fenske, Richard A.
Fleming, Lora E.
Forastiere, Francesco
Hemon, Denis
Frentzel-Beyme, Rainer
Fritschi, Lin
Gerin, Michel
Goldberg, Marcel
Grandjean, Philippe
Grimsrud, Tom K.
Gustavsson, Per
Kjuus, Helge
Haines, Andy
Hartge, Patricia
Hertz-Picciotto, Irva
Hansen, Johnni
Hauptmann, Michael
Heederik, Dick
Hemminki, Kari
Hoppin, Jane A.
Huff, James
Kogevinas, Manolis
Jarvholm, Bengt
Kang, Daehee
Karagas, Margaret R.
Kjaerheim, Kristina
Kriebel, David
Merchant, James A.
Kristensen, Petter
Kromhout, Hans
Laden, Francine
Lebailly, Pierre
Lemasters, Grace
Lubin, Jay H.
Lynch, Charles F.
Parent, Marie‑Elise
Lynge, Elsebeth
Mannetje, Andrea 't
Merler, Enzo
McMichael, Anthony J.
McLaughlin, John R.
Marrett, Loraine
Martuzzi, Marco
Merletti, Franco
Miller, Anthony
Perera, Federica P.
Mirer, Franklin E.
Monson, Richard
Nordby, Karl-Cristian
Olshan, Andrew F.
Perry, Melissa J.
Sandler, Dale P.
Pesatori, Angela Cecilia
Pirastu, Roberta
Porta, Miquel
Pukkala, Eero
Rice, Carol
Richardson, David B.
Keywords: Càncer
Cancer
Issue Date: 1-Jun-2015
Publisher: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
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.
Note: Reproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409149
It is part of: Environmental Health Perspectives, 2015, vol. 123, num. 6, p. 507-514
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/125713
Related resource: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409149
Appears in Collections:Articles publicats en revistes (Institut d'lnvestigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL))

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
PearceN.pdf215.1 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is in the public domain Creative Commons