The latest International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph Program report on cancer hazards associated with firefighting work, which blanketly states, “occupational exposure as a firefighter causes cancer,” has provided another example of the need for an improved way to evaluate real-world cancer exposure risks.

According to U.S. National Fire Protection Association research, firefighters have as much as a 9 percent higher rate of cancer diagnoses than the general population, but clearly not all in the profession get cancer. IARC’s language and “hazard” only approach, which does not evaluate dose or exposure elements, has frequently been questioned for pushing policy makers to act on misleading or non-existent threats and promulgating scores of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits.

According to research published by [professor Samuel] Cohen and an international team of scientists, the results for those relying on IARC Monographs have been net-negative impacts on public health while failing to advance the goal of reducing real exposure risks to actual carcinogens. In fact, many health regulators around the world frequently disagree with and discount IARC assessments when evaluating carcinogenicity of products ranging from pesticides and nutritional supplements to coffee and the materials used in firefighting. Even IARC’s parent, the World Health Organization, has disagreed with their approach and findings. But IARC’s misleading and ineffective hazard assessments remain.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here