Back to Search Start Over

Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the international agency for research on cancer (IARC) and the european food safety authority (EFSA)

Authors :
Portier, Christopher J
Armstrong, Bruce K
Baguley, Bruce C
Baur, Xaver
Belyaev, Igor
Bellé, Robert
Belpoggi, Fiorella
Biggeri, Annibale
Bosland, Maarten C
Bruzzi, Paolo
Budnik, Lygia Therese
Bugge, Merete D
Burns, Kathleen
Calaf, Gloria M
Carpenter, David O
Carpenter, Hillary M
López-Carrillo, Lizbeth
Clapp, Richard
Cocco, Pierluigi
Consonni, Dario
Comba, Pietro
Craft, Elena
Dalvie, Mohamed Aqiel
Davis, Devra
Demers, Paul A
De Roos, Anneclaire J
DeWitt, Jamie
Forastiere, Francesco
Freedman, Jonathan H
Fritschi, Lin
Gaus, Caroline
Gohlke, Julia M
Goldberg, Marcel
Greiser, Eberhard
Hansen, Johnni
Hardell, Lennart
Hauptmann, Michael
Huang, Wei
Huff, James
James, Margaret O
Jameson, C W
Kortenkamp, Andreas
Kopp-Schneider, Annette
Kromhout, Hans
Larramendy, Marcelo L
Landrigan, Philip J
Lash, Lawrence H
Leszczynski, Dariusz
Lynch, Charles F
Magnani, Corrado
Mandrioli, Daniele
Martin, Francis L
Merler, Enzo
Michelozzi, Paola
Miligi, Lucia
Miller, Anthony B
Mirabelli, Dario
Mirer, Franklin E
Naidoo, Saloshni
Perry, Melissa J
Petronio, Maria Grazia
Pirastu, Roberta
Portier, Ralph J
Ramos, Kenneth S
Robertson, Larry W
Rodriguez, Theresa
Röösli, Martin
Ross, Matt K
Roy, Deodutta
Rusyn, Ivan
Saldiva, Paulo
Sass, Jennifer
Savolainen, Kai
Scheepers, Paul T J
Sergi, Consolato
Silbergeld, Ellen K
Smith, Martyn T
Stewart, Bernard W
Sutton, Patrice
Tateo, Fabio
Terracini, Benedetto
Thielmann, Heinz W
Thomas, David B
Vainio, Harri
Vena, John E
Vineis, Paolo
Weiderpass, Elisabete
Weisenburger, Dennis D
Woodruff, Tracey J
Yorifuji, Takashi
Yu, Il Je
Zambon, Paola
Zeeb, Hajo
Zhou, Shu-Feng
Sub IER overig
LS IRAS EEPI EXAS (Arb.hyg+bl.st.kar.)
Organisation Studies
dIRAS RA-2
Sub IER overig
LS IRAS EEPI EXAS (Arb.hyg+bl.st.kar.)
Organisation Studies
dIRAS RA-2
Source :
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(8), 741. BMJ Publishing Group, Portier, CJ; Armstrong, BK; Baguley, BC; Baur, X; Belyaev, I; Bellé, R; et al.(2016). Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the international agency for research on cancer (IARC) and the european food safety authority (EFSA). Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(8), 741-745. doi: 10.1136/jech-2015-207005. UC Berkeley: Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/08z12232, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70, 741-5, Journal of epidemiology and community health, vol 70, iss 8, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Journal of epidemiology and community health, 70(8): 741-745, SEDICI (UNLP), Universidad Nacional de La Plata, instacron:UNLP, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70, 8, pp. 741-5
Publication Year :
2016

Abstract

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Programme identifies chemicals, drugs, mixtures, occupational exposures, lifestyles and personal habits, and physical and biological agents that cause cancer in humans and has evaluated about 1000 agents since 1971. Monographs are written by ad hoc Working Groups (WGs) of international scientific experts over a period of about 12 months ending in an eight-day meeting. The WG evaluates all of the publicly available scientific information on each substance and, through a transparent and rigorous process,1 decides on the degree to which the scientific evidence supports that substance’s potential to cause or not cause cancer in humans. For Monograph 112,2 17 expert scientists evaluated the carcinogenic hazard for four insecticides and the herbicide glyphosate.3 The WG concluded that the data for glyphosate meet the criteria for classification as a probable human carcinogen. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the primary agency of the European Union for risk assessments regarding food safety. In October 2015, EFSA reported4 on their evaluation of the Renewal Assessment Report5 (RAR) for glyphosate that was prepared by the Rapporteur Member State, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). EFSA concluded that ‘glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential’. Addendum 1 (the BfR Addendum) of the RAR5 discusses the scientific rationale for differing from the IARC WG conclusion. Serious flaws in the scientific evaluation in the RAR incorrectly characterise the potential for a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to glyphosate. Since the RAR is the basis for the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) conclusion,4 it is critical that these shortcomings are corrected.<br />La lista completa de autores que integran el documento puede consultarse en el archivo<br />Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
0143005X
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(8), 741. BMJ Publishing Group, Portier, CJ; Armstrong, BK; Baguley, BC; Baur, X; Belyaev, I; Bellé, R; et al.(2016). Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the international agency for research on cancer (IARC) and the european food safety authority (EFSA). Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(8), 741-745. doi: 10.1136/jech-2015-207005. UC Berkeley: Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/08z12232, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70, 741-5, Journal of epidemiology and community health, vol 70, iss 8, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Journal of epidemiology and community health, 70(8): 741-745, SEDICI (UNLP), Universidad Nacional de La Plata, instacron:UNLP, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70, 8, pp. 741-5
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....1d53e530224c9528b935b4943419f10e
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-207005.