3 ms·
Red meat is on IARC 2A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A. The IARC is an agency of the World Health Organ
by delichon 2y ago
Red meat is on IARC 2A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IARC_group_2A. The IARC is an agency of the World Health Organization, so these lists don't impose any obligations on the FDA.
- TeaBrain 2y agoThe parent comment's mention of the IARC list is completely irrelevant. IARC doesn't have anything to do with the EPA. Edit: Prior to it being edited, the comment I responded to here posed the question to the original IARC comment of whether the EPA could ban red meat due to it classified as a carcinogen by IARC.
- stonemetal12 2y agoIsn't that their point? If the Chemical in question is a carcinogen, but a weak one categorized the same way as other foods like red meat, then it probably isn't going to get banned.
- TeaBrain 2y agoThe parent of their comment seems to be confused by how the EPA and IARC are not related, so I don't think they do have a point. Prior to my comment, the comment you responded to originally posed the question of whether the EPA could ban red meat due to it being on IARCs list, before being stealth edited.
- mmcdermott 2y agoI don't think the point was organizational, that decisions by the IARC must be respected by the EPA, but more common sensical: if a substance is roughly equivalent in risk to food, which is ingested, then it surely can't be more harmful to spray it than it is to eat it. That may not hold in all situations, but it doesn't seem crazy as a general principle.