The Voice of Epidemiology

    
    


    Web EpiMonitor

► Home ► About ► News ► Job Bank Events ► Resources ► Contact
 
E
pidemiologists React Quickly To Jury Decision About Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide And Cancer

A jury in San Francisco last month awarded $289 million dollars to a man who claimed his cancer was caused by exposure to glyphosate, a widely available herbicide sold by Monsanto under the Roundup brand name. Because the trial considered evidence from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which has classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic”, epidemiologists who have criticized or defended the IARC were quick to publish their reactions.

Neil Pearce, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and a leading defender of the IARC, published a commentary on the School’s “Expert Opinion” section. https://bit.ly/2D3A5nS  Geoffrey Kabat, cancer epidemiologist formerly at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, responded to the Pearce article with his own perspective on the IARC published on the website of the American Council on Science and Health.  https://bit.ly/2peHd77

In an attempt to better understand the main reasons for the controversy, we asked each to clarify key points made in their articles. We begin this month with our questions to Pearce and his responses. For the convenience of our readers, we are reprinting Pearce’s commentary followed by our questions and his answers. We invited Kabat to do the same by responding to questions of clarification about his commentary. He told the Monitor “I have already written what I have to say on the issue of glyphosate.”

 
Reprint

Wednesday 15 August 2018 by Professor Neil Pearce

Independent, Rigorous, Vilified—Why Attacks On The IARC Are Unfair.

Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world, and in most countries is available to the general public – you can buy it in the UK at your local garden centre. More court cases are pending in the USA, and similar cases in other countries are likely to follow.

The recent decision of a Californian court to award compensation of $289 million to a man who claimed that herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his cancer (a non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma) has potentially profound implications.

A key piece of evidence in the trial was that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organisation (WHO), has classified glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic’. This classification has been followed by major controversies, particularly in light of the recent relicensing of glyphosate by the European Commission, hundreds of litigation cases in the USA brought by cancer patients against Monsanto and the decision of the California Environmental Protection Agency to label glyphosate as a carcinogen.

Disappointingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, this controversy has led to attacks not only on the IARC decision, but also on some of those involved in the IARC Monograph meeting which made the decision, and on IARC itself. These events are not happening in a vacuum. There have been attacks on previous IARC decisions on potential causes of cancer such as formaldehyde, diesel fumes and radiofrequency electromagnetic elds. More ominously, there are moves by some governments to threaten to cut the funding of IARC, in response to these recent ‘inconvenient’ decisions.

So how do the IARC Monographs work? IARC, by far the most authoritative agency in this field, is supported by funding from 26 countries, including the UK. There are independent Governing Councils and Scientific Councils, and also Advisory Groups that recommend which chemicals and other exposures should be considered for evaluation of their carcinogenicity. Monograph Work Groups are then assembled, each of which evaluates the human, animal and mechanistic evidence for carcinogenicity.

On this basis, the agents being reviewed are classified as carcinogenic (group 1), probably carcinogenic (group 2A, which includes glyphosate), possibly carcinogenic (group 2B), not classifiable (group 3), and probably not carcinogenic (group 4). The voting members of the Working Groups are not employed by IARC, and receive no financial compensation; observers from industry and other interested parties can attend the Working Group meetings but not vote. There are clear and strict rules about what evidence can be included in IARC Monographs, with clear rules for searching all of the published literature, and also clear rules that literature that is not publicly available cannot be considered.

I recently reviewed the IARC processes, and some of the criticisms that have been made of them from industry, in a scientific paper with more than 120 co-authors, a group which includes most of the leading researchers in occupational and environmental cancer epidemiology. Some of us disagreed with individual Monograph decisions, which is normal and healthy in science. However, we concluded that, although there is always room for evolution and improvement, that the IARC processes are sound, and that recent industry-funded criticisms have been unfair and unconstructive.

We all look up to IARC and see it as a beacon of independence and objectivity in a world which is becoming increasingly partisan and polarised, and in which scientific evidence is increasingly disparaged and ignored. Facts matter, science matters, and in this field, there is no other agency which even comes close to IARC in terms of independence, objectivity, and transparency.

A few of the myths about IARC that are currently being propagated include “IARC finds that everything causes cancer, “IARC does no research, it only has opinions” and “IARC has been found to be corrupted” – I could go on. The facts are that IARC is under attack because it is objective, effective, and sometimes produces inconvenient findings. We need, and rely on, a court system which is independent, fair, and not subject to political, corporate, or community pressure. We also need independent scientific bodies such as IARC which can review the scientific evidence objectively, and without conflicts of interest, even if this leads to conclusions that some may find inconvenient.
 

 

Interview With Neil Pearce About IARC Commentary

EM:  Can you be more clear about what you mean in your article by stating that the California court decision has “potentially profound implications”? These are not really spelled out as I read the article.

Pearce: My main concern is about the attacks on IARC, not about the court decision (I never get involved in court cases about these issues, on either side). There is a long history of attacks by industry on IARC decisions and processes; the glyphosate controversy is just the most recent.

However, in the introduction to my blog, I noted that the decision has ‘potentially profound implications’ just in terms of the ‘high stakes’ involved, because of the size of the compensation, and the number of people in the population who might consider that they have similar claims.

EM: By citing the Court decision’s reliance on the IARC work and on the decision by the Califronia EPA, you give the impression that glyphosate is an established cause of cancer. Is that your view?

Pearce: I didn’t say that at all – I simply note that the court relied in part on the IARC classification as ‘probably carcinogenic’; ‘probably’ (IARC category 2A) and ‘established’ (which more or less corresponds to IARC category 1 (sufficient evidence)) are not the same thing at all.

EM: Your main focus in the article appears to be a defense of the IARC and its monograph process. While no agency is perfect, do you think there are any fair and/or constructive criticisms that have been made about the IARC report on glyphosate and/or the IARC process itself? Is it all really a smokescreen being used by interests adversely affected by IARC decisions?

Pearce: In my opinion it is a smokescreen; I recently reviewed the IARC processes, and some of the criticisms that have been made of them from industry, in a scientific paper with more than 120 co-authors, a group which includes most of the leading researchers in occupational and environmental cancer epidemiology. Some of us disagreed with individual Monograph decisions, which is normal and healthy in science. However, we concluded that, although there is always room for evolution and improvement, that the IARC processes are sound, and that recent industry-funded criticisms have been unfair and unconstructive. No person or Agency is perfect, but when an Agency is doing a good job, and is under attack as a result of this, then we should say so. To give another example, no climate change scientist, report or agency is perfect, but when climate change reports and scientists are unfairly attacked by industry, then it is reasonable to defend them.

EM:  You seem to have used a gentle word by calling some IARC decisions “inconvenient”. Aren’t they a lot more than that for Monsanto and other businesses or services that might be negatively impacted by IARC findings?

Pearce: Probably, but that is not my concern; my concern is that decisions about whether or not a chemical causes (or probably causes) cancer should be based on scientific evidence, irrespective of whether the findings have financial implications; what we then do with those decisions is up to policy makers and companies, etc, but we shouldn’t try and change the science because we don’t like the outcome.

EM:  I think we can all agree on the need for an agency such as IARC that can serve as a kind of independent science court to evaluate evidence. Also, that such groups must be vigorously defended when subjected to obviously self-interested attacks by various groups. But part of that vigorous defense is addressing valid or reasonable criticisms. Do you think IARC and its supporters have done or are doing an adequate job of addressing valid substantive and procedural criticisms if there are any?

Pearce: I agree completely, but IARC is being unfairly criticized; of course, there are always ways in which such organisations and processes could be improved, but IARC is basically doing a good job of providing independent and objective scientific evaluation of these issues.

EM:  Following your article, Geoffrey Kabat has written an article attacking your apparent approval of the Court decision and defense of the IARC. Kabat seems most interested in making criticisms of the IARC findings on glyphosate and questions why these were not addressed by you.  Can you speak to that?

Pearce: I didn’t say anything for or against the court decision; for that matter, I haven’t commented on the matter, I haven’t commented on the glyphosate decision – I was making a more general defence of IARC and the Monograph process.  ■


Reader Comments:
Have a thought or comment on this story ?  Fill out the information below and we'll post it on this page once it's been reviewed by our editors.
 

       
  Name:        Phone:   
  Email:         
  Comment: 
                 
 
       

           


 

 
 
 
      ©  2011 The Epidemiology Monitor

Privacy  Terms of Use  Sitemap

Digital Smart Tools, LLC