3 ms·

Why is it awful reporting? The WHO’s cancer division (IARC - International Agency for Research on Cancer) is labeling it as being, quite literally, a “possible

Why is it awful reporting? The WHO’s cancer division (IARC - International Agency for Research on Cancer) is labeling it as being, quite literally, a “possible carcinogen.” That’s the actual name of the category. It’s either “Not classified,” “Possible Carcinogen,” “Probable Carcinogen,” or “Carcinogen.” Don’t like it? Bring it up with the WHO.

cwillu 3y ago
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/whos-cancer-research-agency-say-aspartame-sweetener-possible-carcinogen-sources-2023-06-29 https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... LONDON, June 29 (Reuters) - One of the world's most common artificial sweeteners is set to be declared a possible carcinogen next month by a leading global health body, according to two sources with knowledge of the process, pitting it against the food industry and regulators. […13 paragraphs later…] The IARC's decisions have also faced criticism for sparking needless alarm over hard to avoid substances or situations. It has four different levels of classification - carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic and not classifiable. The levels are based on the strength of the evidence, rather than how dangerous a substance is. Using a term with a technical definition that isn't remotely close to the plain english meaning of the composing words, in a headline—and not explaining the gag in the first paragraph—is terrible reporting
mrguyorama 3y ago
Isn't this the same list that says Cellphones are a possible carcinogen despite mountains of evidence that they cause no cancer and also zero known mechanism of action?
sampo 3y ago
> The WHO’s cancer division (IARC - International Agency for Research on Cancer) IARC is only nominally under WHO. It is a weird French agency founded by some French activists and politicians in the 1960's. They use a 5 class classification Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans. Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans. Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans. Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans. But out of the 1042 chemicals and things they have classified, none are in Group 4. (Historically, there once was one single chemical in Group 4, but they have reclassified it.) For IARC, everything is either at least possibly carcinogenic, or there is insufficient evidence (Group 3) to yet declare it carcinogenic. Also: "In 2019 IARC was accused of cooperation with "toxic tort law firms" who make profit of suing companies for compensation for alleged health issues based on IARC classification. IARC was accused from hiding conflicts of interest impacting a few invited experts, especially those related to large-scale cash flows from US law firms." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer#Toxic_tort_law_firms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Resea... Many countries have perfectly capable chemicals agencies and food safety agencies, who are much more reliable than the IARC.
rowanG077 3y ago
That list doesn't even contain "Not a carcinogen". So basically I don't take it seriously at all.

cwillu 3y ago

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/whos-cancer-research-agency-say-aspartame-sweetener-possible-carcinogen-sources-2023-06-29 https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... LONDON, June 29 (Reuters) - One of the world's most common artificial sweeteners is set to be declared a possible carcinogen next month by a leading global health body, according to two sources with knowledge of the process, pitting it against the food industry and regulators. […13 paragraphs later…] The IARC's decisions have also faced criticism for sparking needless alarm over hard to avoid substances or situations. It has four different levels of classification - carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, possibly carcinogenic and not classifiable. The levels are based on the strength of the evidence, rather than how dangerous a substance is. Using a term with a technical definition that isn't remotely close to the plain english meaning of the composing words, in a headline—and not explaining the gag in the first paragraph—is terrible reporting

mrguyorama 3y ago

Isn't this the same list that says Cellphones are a possible carcinogen despite mountains of evidence that they cause no cancer and also zero known mechanism of action?

sampo 3y ago

> The WHO’s cancer division (IARC - International Agency for Research on Cancer) IARC is only nominally under WHO. It is a weird French agency founded by some French activists and politicians in the 1960's. They use a 5 class classification Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans. Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans. Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans. Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans. But out of the 1042 chemicals and things they have classified, none are in Group 4. (Historically, there once was one single chemical in Group 4, but they have reclassified it.) For IARC, everything is either at least possibly carcinogenic, or there is insufficient evidence (Group 3) to yet declare it carcinogenic. Also: "In 2019 IARC was accused of cooperation with "toxic tort law firms" who make profit of suing companies for compensation for alleged health issues based on IARC classification. IARC was accused from hiding conflicts of interest impacting a few invited experts, especially those related to large-scale cash flows from US law firms." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer#Toxic_tort_law_firms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Agency_for_Resea... Many countries have perfectly capable chemicals agencies and food safety agencies, who are much more reliable than the IARC.

rowanG077 3y ago

That list doesn't even contain "Not a carcinogen". So basically I don't take it seriously at all.