Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By GMO Pundit (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based on hazard-identification have become outmoded and serve neither science nor society

Thursday, October 27, 2016 1:02
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

B4INREMOTE-aHR0cHM6Ly8xLmJwLmJsb2dzcG90LmNvbS8tTTVOYjdORHNyRjQvVWdiNDM5bFp1QkkvQUFBQUFBQUJENzQvY18wa29MS21mVGNOS0tseVE1empSeUYzckl0bm9ub0ZnQ1BjQi9zMzIwL0xSJTJCYWRqJTJCanBnJTJCMSUyQm1lZy0tNC5qcGc=

Available online 22 October 2016

Highlights

•Cancer classification schemes based on hazard-identification such IARC and UN GHS are outmoded and inadequate to manage chemical risks.•Chemicals with many orders of magnitude difference in potency and modes of action are placed in the same category.•Unintended consequences of unnecessary health scares, economic costs, loss of beneficial products, and diversion of public funds.•Globally accepted problem formulation and hypothesis-based frameworks provide modern approaches based on hazard and risk characterization.•Call for an international initiative to develop a consensus on classification methodology for carcinogenicity assessment.

Abstract
Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based solely on hazard-identification such as the IARC monograph process and the UN system adopted in the EU have become outmoded. They are based on a concept developed in the 1970s that chemicals could be divided into two classes: carcinogens and non-carcinogens. Categorization in this way places into the same category chemicals and agents with widely differing potencies and modes of action. This is how eating processed meat can fall into the same category as sulfur mustard gas. Approaches based on hazard and risk characterization present an integrated and balanced picture of hazard, dose response and exposure and allow informed risk management decisions to be taken. Because a risk-based decision framework fully considers hazard in the context of dose, potency, and exposure the unintended downsides of a hazard only approach are avoided, e.g., health scares, unnecessary economic costs, loss of beneficial products, adoption of strategies with greater health costs, and the diversion of public funds into unnecessary research. An initiative to agree upon a standardized, internationally acceptable methodology for carcinogen assessment is needed now. The approach should incorporate principles and concepts of existing international consensus-based frameworks including the WHO IPCS mode of action framework.
KeywordsClassification; Hazard characterization; Risk assessment; Carcinogenicity;
IARC; GHS
Abbreviations
ACGIH, American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists;
CoC, United Kingdom Committee on Carcinogenicity;
ECHA, European Chemicals Agency;
EFSA, European Food Safety Authority;
EPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency;
EU, European Union;
GHS, United Nations Global Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling;
IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer;
IPCS, International Programme on Chemical Safety;
JMPR, Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues;
MOA, Mode of Action;
NCI, United States National Cancer Institute;
PMRA, Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency;
WHO, World Health Organization

@ Classification schemes for carcinogenicity based on hazard-identification have become outmoded and serve neither science nor society:

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.