IARC’s reassessment of coffee illustrates problems with its process, messaging

Screen Shot at PM

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

. . . [B]y IARC’s own account, this body of evidence [for coffee] shows no indication of a positive association with any cancer. So, the obvious question is, Why wasn’t coffee reassigned to Group 4: “unlikely to cause cancer in humans”? . . . .

. . . . A number of the agency’s assessments have been criticized for placing too much weight on isolated findings that appear to suggest a risk, while ignoring more solid studies that do not support the existence of risk. The agency’s assessments of cell phones and the weed-killer glyphosate are cases in point.

Related article:  US at final stages of approving next generation GM herbicide-resistant crops, galvanizing activists

IARC’s reassessment of coffee can be viewed as a test case to see whether the agency can weigh the accumulated evidence on a question and come to a scientific, . . . logical and common sense, conclusion.

ADVERTISEMENT

. . . .

. . .[T]he agency stated that “coffee may protect against cancer.” But then it went on to justify its designation of “unclassifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.” . . .  this flagrant contradiction highlights the problems with IARC’s process, its classification scheme, and the messages it puts out to the public.

Read full, original post: IARC Lets Coffee Off The Hook But Only Deepens The Confusion

Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
GLP Podcasts
Infographic: Here’s where GM crops are grown around the world today

Infographic: Here’s where GM crops are grown around the world today

Do you know where biotech crops are grown in the world? This updated ISAAA infographics show where biotech crops were ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend