A global cancer research agency has called for “urgent” action to prevent cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of the World Health Organisation (WHO), made the call at the February 2014 launch of its World Cancer Report 2014.
WHO/IARC news release. Stewart BW, Wild CP, editors (2014). World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer [order details]. BBC News Online. Risks 641.
The failure of the European Commission to deliver legislation on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is alarming, leading members of the Socialists and Democrats grouping (S&D) in the European Parliament have said. An industry lobbying and product defence campaign set out to dissuade the European Commission from acting, and January 2014 the Commission said it would delay action for a least one year.
The French government should block the appointment of a scientist with undeclared asbestos industry links as the head of the Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health (CESP), the country’s leading public health agency, campaigners have said. In a letter to authorities, the National Association of Asbestos Victims (ANDEVA) said the nomination of Paolo Boffetta as head of France’s top institute of epidemiology and public health must be rescinded. Boffetta subsequently withdrew his nomination for the post. The move was reported on 31 January 2014 in Le Monde.
IBAS news report. RightOnCanada news release and follow up on Boffetta’s decision to withdraw. Risks 639,.
A high profile United Nations cancer agency has been ‘captured’ by industry and compromised, new reports suggest. They reveal that two Russian scientists who have acted for Russia’s asbestos lobby around the world are helping fashion the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) policy and publications on asbestos. A paper on asbestos cancer risks with three prominent IARC authors was co-authored by Paolo Boffetta, an ex-IARC staffer who had also acted for the asbestos industry.
In 2012, HSE research concluded that occupational breast cancer was responsible for several hundred deaths a year in the Great Britain. It says estimates from its cancer burden study, on which the 2012 research report was based, show that there are around 550 deaths each year from breast cancer in women who undertake shift work, and nearly 2,000 new cases registered. The paper noted: “The estimated total attributable fraction (female only) for cancer of the breast attributable to occupation overall and associated with shift work (including flight personnel) is 4.56% (95%Confidence Interval (CI)=3.26-5.97), which equates to 555 (95%CI= 397-727) attributable deaths and 1,969 (95%CI=1,407-2,579) attributable registrations.” HSE estimates that in the UK, around 5–20 per cent of the working population now engaged in shift work that involves night work.
The burden of occupational cancer in Great Britain – Breast cancer, RR852, HSE, December 2012. HSE shiftwork and breast cancer webpage.
The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) has decided there is not a case for recommend recognising welding-related lung cancers as a prescribed industrial disease. An IIAC information note concludes: “After reviewing the limited evidence available on this subject, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (IIAC) decided not to make any recommendations for changes to the list of prescribed diseases for which people can claim Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB).” In 1990, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found that exposure to certain chromium and nickel salts as a welder was a proven cause of cancer in humans. It also found there was limited evidence of welding fumes and gases being a cause of cancer in humans.
Lung cancer and welding, IIAC information note, 20 December 2013.
Chromium, nickel and welding, IARC monograph 49, 1990.
Some scientific hired guns try to hide their industry ties; others flaunt them. Either way cash-for-science can be very bad news for your health. Hazards follows the money in a feature that is strongly critical of industry financed researchers, particularly asbestos industry favourite David Bernstein.
David Bernstein has been the global asbestos industry’s go to scientist for over a decade. A payment of about $200,000 by the International Chrysotile Association resulted in a 2013 paper in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology. While admitting “heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer,” it concluded: “The importance of the present and other similar reviews is that the studies they report show that low exposures to chrysotile do not present a detectable risk to health.” The report has received considerable criticism for bias and methodological failings, but has been used extensively by the industry to support campaigns for continued asbestos use, particularly exports to Asia and Latin America.
D Bernstein and others. Health hazards of chrysotile revisited, Critical Reviews in Toxicology, volume 43, number 2, pages 154-183, 2013.
Almost 5 per cent of lung cancer deaths in the United States and the United Kingdom may be due to workplace exposure to diesel exhaust, according to a new study. The study’s findings suggest official Health and Safety Executive (HSE) estimates of around 600 occupational lung cancer deaths in the UK each year caused by diesel exhaust exposures could fall more than 1,000 short of the true toll.
Roel Vermeulen, Debra T Silverman, Eric Garshick, Jelle Vlaanderen, Lützen Portengen, and Kyle Steenland. Exposure-Response Estimates for Diesel Engine Exhaust and Lung Cancer Mortality Based on Data from Three Occupational Cohorts, Environmental Health Perspectives, published online 22 November 2013. ETUI news update. HSE occupational lung cancer estimates. Risks 635.
In November 2013, the Canadian group RightOnCanada named 13 scientists who it said “help the asbestos industry sell asbestos”. All had made contributions or given evidence in support of the asbestos industry. According to the group: “The pro-asbestos views put forward by these scientists are rejected by independent scientists as having no credibility. Not a single reputable scientific body in the world supports their position. But they are very popular with the asbestos industry, which has money to pay them to show up again and again at asbestos industry events, such as the one in India, to help sell asbestos and to defeat proposed bans on asbestos. While the asbestos industry has money to defend its financial interest, those who will be harmed, as a result, and who will die painful, unnecessary deaths from asbestos-related diseases, have no money to defend their interest, which is life itself.”
Scientists who help the asbestos industry sell asbestos, RightOnCanada.