| 1. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(författare)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Stevens, Richard G., et al.
(författare)
-
Considerations of circadian impact for defining 'shift work' in cancer studies : IARC Working Group Report.
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Occupational and Environmental Medicine. - : BMJ. - 1351-0711 .- 1470-7926. ; 68:2, s. 154-162
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Based on the idea that electric light at night might account for a portion of the high and rising risk of breast cancer worldwide, it was predicted long ago that women working a non-day shift would be at higher risk compared with day-working women. This hypothesis has been extended more recently to prostate cancer. On the basis of limited human evidence and sufficient evidence in experimental animals, in 2007 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified 'shift work that involves circadian disruption' as a probable human carcinogen, group 2A. A limitation of the epidemiological studies carried out to date is in the definition of 'shift work.' IARC convened a workshop in April 2009 to consider how 'shift work' should be assessed and what domains of occupational history need to be quantified for more valid studies of shift work and cancer in the future. The working group identified several major domains of non-day shifts and shift schedules that should be captured in future studies: (1) shift system (start time of shift, number of hours per day, rotating or permanent, speed and direction of a rotating system, regular or irregular); (2) years on a particular non-day shift schedule (and cumulative exposure to the shift system over the subject's working life); and (3) shift intensity (time off between successive work days on the shift schedule). The group also recognised that for further domains to be identified, more research needs to be conducted on the impact of various shift schedules and routines on physiological and circadian rhythms of workers in real-world environments.
|
|
