This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bernstein, D. Articles by Dunnigan, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Misconceptions and Misuse of International Agency for Research on Cancer `Classification of Carcinogenic Substances'

The Case of Asbestos

Geneva, Switzerland

Allen Gibbs

Department of Histopathology, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK

Fred Pooley

Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

Arthur Langer

Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York, NY, USA

Ken Donaldson

The Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

John Hoskins

Haslemere, UK

Jacques Dunnigan

University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Qc, Canada

In their work on human cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer have run a programme of «monographs» that evaluate carcinogenic risk of chemicals to man. The data collected provide considerable information on the risk from substances identified as carcinogens. However, this is largely unused in the IARC classification scheme in spite of the use of the term `risk' in the title and text of the monographs. Consequently, some governments and pressure groups use hazard identification to advance the cause for banning agents without conducting a risk assessment. Confusion and indiscriminate use of `hazard' and `risk' mean that the hazard data are commonly misrepresented as risk data. A common political response is to push regulatory action to extremes, citing the Precautionary Principle. Unfortunately, eliminating substances on the grounds of inherent hazard can deny major benefits to societies and undermine the sustainable developments. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the case of the minerals known collectively as asbestos. Evidence available clearly differentiates the hazards of chrysotile and amphibole asbestos, yet the current IARC classification does not make this distinction. This is in spite of the fact that amphibole asbestos produces orders of magnitude more diseases than chrysotile when used in the same way. The overwhelming weight of evidence available indicates that chrysotile can be used safely with low risk. Cement products such as water pipes and boards for housing provide are versatile products made at affordable cost for the developing countries which if not available would cost rather than save lives.

Key Words: Asbestos • Carcinogens • Classification • Hazard • IARC • Risk

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Braun Structuring silence: asbestos and biomedical research in Britain and South Africa Race Class, July 1, 2008; 50(1): 59 - 78. [Abstract] [PDF]