Viewpoint: How hazard-designation agency WHO’s IARC—International Agency for Research on Cancer—misleads regulators and the public

prop illo
Credit: Lydia Zuraw/California Healthline/Getty Images
[W]ood dust, solar radiation (the sun), soot, very hot beverages, night shift work and Ginko biloba… can give you cancer according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, pronounced eye ark). IARC is part of the World Health Organization.

No matter what happens with the WHO, IARC is more of a long-term problem than its parent. In a sense, it’s not their fault, it’s the fault of the people who use their information incorrectly. Calling something a carcinogen does not mean that it is likely to give you cancer. It means that under a particular type of testing protocol, one that has little to do with human behavior, will give a rodent cancer.

There are several areas in the U.S. where we use IARC pronouncements without going the step further to take into account exposure. One is the Delaney Clause, a 62 year-old law that says that if a substance is found to be carcinogenic in animals or humans, it cannot be a food or color additive. When it is found to be carcinogenic in animals, it means that the animals have been given massive doses to see what happens. When we banned the sweetener saccharin in the late 1970s, astute commenters noticed that the rats were fed the equivalent of 800 cans of soda.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

There are also numerous consumer groups who use IARC information to warn consumers about carcinogens in our food and cosmetics. Finally, because of a lack of understanding of the necessary partnership of  potency and exposure, juries sometimes hand out awards for carcinogens that do not adequately factor in exposure.

A rolled-up newspaper in the hands of a lethal assassin is a risk – both potency and exposure.

Read the original post

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-1.39.26-PM
Viewpoint: ‘Safer for children?’ Stonyfield yogurt under fire for deceptive organic marketing
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-10.46.29-AM
Viewpoint: How to counter science disinformation? Science journalist offers 12 practical tips
ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-12_16_37-PM-2
Viewpoint: Are cancer rates ‘skyrocketing’ as RFK, Jr. and MAHA claim? The evidence says mostly the opposite
Picture1-14
When superbugs threaten vulnerable children: Can AI help solve antibiotic resistance?
Screenshot-2026-04-23-at-11.00.36-AM
Regulators' dilemma: Thalidomide, Metformin, and the cost of getting drug approvals wrong
ChatGPT-Image-May-12-2026-08_39_41-PM
GLP podcast: Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Food—health harming industries or life-saving innovators?
Picture1-1
Cooling the planet with balloons: Could a geoengineering gamble slow global warming?
png-pill-omega-Supp-fish-oil
Millions take omega-3 fish oil for brain health. New research suggests it may do the opposite.
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.