Foods / Tuesday, 09-Sep-2025

Viewpoint: IARC has labeled cell phones, night shifts and coffee as likely carcinogens — but we’re not doomed. Here’s why we don’t need to panic

Viewpoint: IARC has labeled cell phones, night shifts and coffee as likely carcinogens — but we’re not doomed. Here’s why we don’t need to panic

XLinkedInFacebookRedditBlueskyThreads
The IARC Monograph program needs to have a conversation about making its pronouncements more useful. The upcoming IARC Scientific Workshop on Bias Assessment in Cancer Hazard Identification in October 2022 would be a good place to start this conversation. Credit: Lau Ka-kuen
The IARC Monograph program needs to have a conversation about making its pronouncements more useful. The upcoming IARC Scientific Workshop on Bias Assessment in Cancer Hazard Identification in October 2022 would be a good place to start this conversation. Credit: Lau Ka-kuen

Over the years IARC has labeled red meat, pickled foods and salted fish, carpentry, working at night, using cell phones, and, just recently, firefighting as possible, probable or definitely carcinogenic. How are we to respond to these pronouncements in an appropriate way? Stop using my cell phone? Quit my job? Give up meat? If so, you’d also have to give up bread and many fruits and vegetables, as they contain substances that are considered carcinogenic under IARC’s system.

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

It wouldn’t be strange to start feeling anxious about all this and wondering if, we’re all, in fact, doomed. But as another famous line from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy tells us, “Don’t Panic.”

The IARC monograph program was set up in the early 1970s when our understanding of cancer and its causes was developing. At the time it was assumed that carcinogenicity was a fairly straight-forward, binary issue — either a substance caused cancer, or it did not – and that the number of cancer-causing agents was relatively limited.

Not surprisingly, the IARC Monograph program consistently finds just about everything can cause cancer. Of the 1,000 or so substances and life-style hazards they have evaluated, they have only found one (1) that definitely did not cause cancer.

Maybe [the] IARC Monograph program needs to get more specific with its questions and the context of those questions. Instead of the simplistic question, “Does a substance cause cancer?” they should ask questions like: “At what dose does it cause cancer? (in other words, how potent is it?) Is anyone, ever, likely to be exposed at that dose?

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

combined disclaimer outlined@ x
donation plea outlined@ x
XLinkedInFacebookRedditBlueskyThreads
podcastsGLP Podcasts & Podcast VideosMore...
Video: Nuclear energy will destroy us? Global warming is an existential threat? Chemicals are massacring bees? Donate to the Green Industrial Complex!

Video: Nuclear energy will destroy us? Global warming is an existential threat? Chemicals are massacring bees? Donate to the Green Industrial Complex!

v facts and fallacies cameron and liza default featured image outlined

GLP podcast: Science journalism is a mess. Here’s how to fix it

Mosquito massacre: Can we safely tackle malaria with a CRISPR gene drive?

Mosquito massacre: Can we safely tackle malaria with a CRISPR gene drive?

dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

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 ...
science hand testtube x

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

Genetic Literacy Project
international law x

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

Genetic Literacy Project
two types of breeding x

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?

Genetic Literacy Project
Screen Shot at AM

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’

T H LO

IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer): Glyphosate cancer determination challenged by world consensus

Most Popular

  • Viewpoint — Fact checking MAHA mythmakers: How wellness influencers and RFK, Jr. undermine American science and health

  • Viewpoint: Video — Big Solar is gobbling up productive agricultural land and hurting farmers yet providing little energy or sustainabilty gains

  • Fighting deforestation with CO2: Biotechnology breakthrough creates sustainable palm oil alternative for cosmetics

  • Trust issues: What happens when therapists use ChatGPT?

  • California, Washington, Oregon forge immunization alliance to safeguard vaccine access against federal undermining

  • 30-year-old tomato line shows genetic resistance to devastating virus

  • The free-range chicken dilemma: Better for birds, but with substantial costs

  • ‘You have to treat the brain first’: Rethinking chronic pain with Sanjay Gupta

Follow Us

Newsletter

Be the first to know about new products and promotions.

Subscribe with your email

Tranding

Tags

trendglee

Fresh, fast, and fun — all the entertainment you need in one place.

© Trendglee. All Rights Reserved. Designed by trendglee