| |
Epidemiologists
React Quickly To Jury Decision About Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide And
CancerA
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. ■
|
|