umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
Show others and affiliations
2015 (English)In: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives, ISSN 0091-6765, E-ISSN 1552-9924, Vol. 123, no 6, 507-514 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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 the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures 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 paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.

DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 123, no 6, 507-514 p.
National Category
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-100368DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1409149ISI: 000357296200010PubMedID: 25712798OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-100368DiVA: diva2:791812
Available from: 2015-03-02 Created: 2015-03-02 Last updated: 2017-12-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(738 kB)374 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 738 kBChecksum SHA-512
ba6ac6856d9e8fc0b18403bdee0340b47430c38fbf61114dd01967d2965ec640f602bfbd4333d2f4e0e73a6d8414e2b5297b746c4aef888ffd4f0b54f27ab1e2
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Järvholm, Bengt

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Järvholm, Bengt
By organisation
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
In the same journal
Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives
Environmental Health and Occupational Health

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 374 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 141 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf