The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
The International Agency of Research into Cancer (IARC), an arm of the WHO, is notable for two things. First, they carefully assess whether things cause cancer.
Second, they are terrible at communicating their findings.
Their failings are in full view today. As IARC’s “classified the consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A),” and processed meat “as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).”
To explain, the organization slots everything into five possible categories. The highest tier, Group 1, is reserved for established carcinogens, including smoking, asbestos, and now processed meat. The next two tiers, 2A (“probably carcinogenic”) and 2B (“possibly carcinogenic”), are for things whose relationship to cancer is less certain. Group 3 is for substances that can’t be classified, due to lack of data.
But, these classifications are based on strength of evidence not degree of risk. They do not convey how dangerous something is, just how certain we are that something is dangerous. But they’re presented with language that completely obfuscates that distinction.
Related on the SLP
Worse, lumping risk factors into categories invites people to view them as like-for-like. Hence misleading headlines like this one in the Guardian: “Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO.”
This confusion isn’t new. It happened when IARC ruled on mobile phones, and Round-Up, and diesel fumes. And yet, nothing changes. Which wouldn’t be a problem, except IARC always issues press releases about its new classifications.
It’s not hard to convey this information well: Check out Cancer Research UK’s excellent explainer about the new ruling.
Perhaps we need a separate classification scheme for scientific organizations that are “confusogenic to humans.”
Read full, original post: Beefing With the World Health Organization’s Cancer Warnings
