The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; ) is an intergovernmental agency forming part of the World Health Organization of the United Nations.
Its role is to conduct and coordinate research into the causes of cancer. It also collects and publishes surveillance data regarding the occurrence of cancer worldwide.
Its IARC monographs programme identifies carcinogenic hazards and evaluates environmental causes of cancer in humans.
IARC has its own governing council, and in 1965 the first members were West Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.
History
thumb|243x243px|Exterior of the main building of the headquarters for the International Agency of Research on Cancer
In late February 1963, after he experienced his spouse suffering and dying of cancer, journalist and peace activist Yves Poggioli sent a letter to Emmanuel d'Astier de la Vignerie relating his story, and urging support for the creation of an international center to fight against cancer, whose funding was to be directly debited from the national budgets allocated to nuclear weaponry. Touched by the letter, d'Astier assembled a group of French prominent figures, among which Pierre Auger, Francis Perrin, Jean Hyppolite, François Perroux, Pierre Massé, Louis Armand, , Jean Rostand, François Mauriac, Antoine Lacassagne, Ambroise-Marie Carré and Le Corbusier, to reach for French president Charles de Gaulle in national newspaper on 8 November 1963. de Gaulle answered positively to the call and reached for the World Health Organization director Marcolino Gomes Candau on 11 November. The project rapidly gained momentum, and IARC was created on 20 May 1965, by a resolution of the World Health Assembly, as the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization.
The first IARC Director was John Higginson (1966–1981), who was followed by Lorenzo Tomatis (1982–1993), Paul Kleihues (1994–2003), Peter Boyle (2004–2008), Christopher Wild (2009–2018) and Elisabete Weiderpass (2019–present).
Monographs
In 1970, after IARC received numerous requests for lists of known and suspected human carcinogens, its advisory committee recommended that expert groups prepare a compendium on carcinogenic chemicals, which began publishing the IARC Monographs series with this aim in mind.
IARC identifies carcinogenic hazards based on qualitative assessment of animal and human evidence. The IARC Working Groups classify agents, mixtures and exposures into one of five categories. The categorization is a matter of scientific judgement that reflects the strength of evidence derived from studies in humans, experimental animals and other relevant data. The classification is based only on the strength of evidence for carcinogenicity, not on the relative increase of cancer risk due to exposure, or on the amount of agent exposure necessary to cause cancer.
- Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans.
There is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. The determination is usually based on epidemiological studies on humans, but can also be based on sufficient evidence in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.
Substances that do not fall into any other group are placed in this category. This is not a determination of non-carcinogenicity or overall safety. It means that further research is needed, especially when exposures are widespread or the cancer data are consistent with differing interpretations.
- Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.
There is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in humans and in experimental animals. In some instances, agents or mixtures for which there is inadequate evidence in humans but evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, consistently and strongly supported by a broad range of mechanistic and other relevant data may be classified group 4.
Controversies
Transparency (1998–2004)
Lorenzo Tomatis, IARC director from 1982 to 1993, was allegedly "barred from entering the building" in 2003 after "accusing the IARC of softpedaling the risks of industrial chemicals" in a 2002 article. In 2003 thirty public-health scientists signed a letter targeting conflicts of interest and the lack of transparency. as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A).
Subsequently, many national regulatory authorities underwent a reevaluation of the risk posed by the exposure to glyphosate. Regulators in the United States, Europe (ECHA, EFSA), Canada, Japan and New Zealand reported that the glyphosate was unlikely to pose any carcinogenic risk to humans.
Since the publishing, IARC blamed its loss of reputation upon the agro-chemical industry.
Industry reactions
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the trade group for U.S. chemical companies, declared that IARC evaluates how hazardous a substance is based on whether the substance could "cause cancer in humans under any circumstances, including at exposure levels beyond what is typical." The NIH grant database showed that it has given the IARC over $1.2 million in 2016. Jason Chaffetz (Republican) asked the NIH to give his committee details of its standards for awarding grants and vetting grant nominees. Additionally, Congressman Robert Aderholt (Republican), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, wrote a letter in June 2016 to the head of the NIH questioning the funding of IARC. However, IARC respond that the Working Groups methods are "widely respected for their scientific rigor, standardized and transparent process and for freedom from conflicts of interest."
Marcel Kuntz, a French director of research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, criticized the classification because it did not assess the risks associated with exposure (probability of getting a cancer from certain exposure): for example, red meat is qualified as probably carcinogenic, but the quantity of consumed red meat at which it could become dangerous is not specified. Ed Yong, a British science journalist, criticized the agency and its "confusing" category system for misleading the public. IARC answered in a press release their mission was not to evaluate potency or to assess the risks but only to determine scientifically the strength of carcinogenetic evidence.
Some of the items that the IARC classifies, such as mobile phones (Group 2B) and processed meat (Group 1) have caused controversy.
Aspartame (2023)
In July 2023, an IARC committee concluded that there was "limited evidence" for aspartame causing cancer in humans, classifying the sweetener as possibly carcinogenic. The lead investigator of the IARC report stated that the classification "shouldn't really be taken as a direct statement that indicates that there is a known cancer hazard from consuming aspartame. This is really more of a call to the research community to try to better clarify and understand the carcinogenic hazard that may or may not be posed by aspartame consumption."
A WHO expert committee on food additives added that the limited cancer assessment indicated no reason to change the recommended acceptable daily intake level for aspartame of 40 mg per kg of body weight per day, reaffirming the safety of consuming aspartame within this limit.<blockquote>Aspartame being labeled by IARC as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" does not mean that aspartame is actually linked to cancer. The FDA disagrees with IARC's conclusion that these studies support classifying aspartame as a possible carcinogen to humans. FDA scientists reviewed the scientific information included in IARC's review in 2021 when it was first made available and identified significant shortcomings in the studies on which IARC relied.</blockquote>
Members
The five founding states were the US, France, Italy, West Germany and the UK.
They were later joined by 23 other members, of which 3 left:
{| class="wikitable"
! rowspan="2" |Countries
! colspan="2" |Entry
! colspan="2" |Exit
|-
!Date
!Resolution
!Date
!Resolution
|-
|Australia
|September 1965
|GC/1/R1
|
|
|-
|USSR then Russia
|September 1965
|GC/1/R2
|
|
|-
|Israel
|April 1966
|GC/2/R1
|October 1971
|GC/9/R11
|-
|Netherlands
|April 1967
|GC/3/R1
|
|
|-
|Belgium
|October 1970
|GC/8/R10
|
|
|-
|Japan
|May 1972
|GC/10/R1
|
|
|-
|Sweden
|May 1979
|GC/18/R1
|
|
|-
|Canada
|January 1982
|GC/22/R1
|
|
|-
|Finland
|April 1986
|GC/27/R1
|
|
|-
|Norway
|April 1987
|GC/28/R1
|
|
|-
|Denmark
|May 1990
|GC/31/R1
|
|-
|Switzerland
|May 1990
|GC/31/R2
|
|
|-
|Argentina
|May 1998
|GC/39/R1
|May 2001
|GC/42/R3
|-
|Brazil
|May 1998
|GC/39/R2
|May 2001
|GC/42/R4
|-
|Spain
|May 2003
|GC/44/R1
|
|
|-
|India
|May 2006
|GC/48/R1
|
|
|-
|South Korea
|May 2006
|GC/48/R2
|
|
|-
|Ireland
|May 2007
|GC/49/R2
|
|
|-
|Austria
|May 2008
|GC/50/R18
|
|
|-
|Brazil
|May 2013
|GC/55/17
|
|
|-
|Qatar
|May 2013
|GC/55/19
|
|
|-
|Morocco
|May 2015
|GC/57/19
|
|
|-
|China
|May 2021
|GC/63/R1
|
|
|-
|Saudi Arabia
|May 2024
|GC/66/R1
|
|
|-
|Egypt
|May 2024