Defence of IARC monographs

Abstract

We note with some concern the content of articles in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health,1Tomatis L The IARC monographs programme: changing attitudes towards public health.Int J Occup Environ Health. 2002; 8: 144-152Crossref PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar, 2Huff J IARC monographs, industry influence, and upgrading, downgrading, and under-grading chemicals.Int J Occup Environ Health. 2002; 8: 149-270Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar and Commentaries in The Lancet Oncology3Burton A Is industry influencing IARC to downgrade chemicals?.Lancet Oncol. 2003; 4: 4Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar and The Lancet.4EditorialTransparency at IARC.Lancet. 2003; 361: 189Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar We are aware of the specific criticisms of both a perceived change in focus of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monographs programme with respect to public health and the apparent absence of independence of the membership of working groups. These criticisms are not valid. With respect to the commitment to public health, we consider that the IARC monographs have assigned high priority to assessment of exposures that are widespread, such as those entailing biological agents and lifestyle factors. Understanding of the relevant hazards in these complex areas has the potential to contribute to reduced cancer risk for many of the world's population. Working groups for such assessments represent a wide range of expertise. However, in its traditional heartland of assessing occupational and environmental agents, the IARC has sometimes encountered difficulties in finding members with sufficient expertise who do not have real or perceived interests in the agents being assessed. We believe that measures the IARC has in place to ensure that members with inappropriate interests do not exert undue influence on evaluations are effective. It is noteworthy that every published IARC monograph contains all evidence that is deemed pertinent to make an informed assessment of carcinogenic hazard, including mechanistic data that increasingly contribute to evaluations that lie above or below the default criteria. We are convinced that the IARC endeavours to bring together working groups with the best expertise available, and that these groups strive to make assessment on the best scientific evidence that is openly available. On behalf of the many scientists who serve, or who have served, as members of IARC monograph working groups, we unreservedly repudiate the implied slur on the integrity and ability of all concerned. This correspondence letter is a result of a statement unanimously adopted by members of the sixth advisory group of the IARC monographs programme (Lyon, France; Feb 11–14, 2003). Our action is taken in the absence of any wish, comment, or otherwise by the director, IARC, or IARC staff. BWS is chair, HG is vice-chair, and DS and TK are subgroup chairs of the advisory group of the IARC monographs programme.