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

| | June 21, 2016
Screen Shot at PM
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

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:  EU ban of globally used glyphosate would disrupt agricultural and food markets

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.

. . . .

. . .[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

Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend