Under the Influence

[Guest guest]

http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/02fal/iarc.asp

 

Under the Influence

 

by Jon Luoma

 

Is industry becoming an inside player at the world's leading research center on

carcinogens?

 

n 1993, an officer of the Philip Morris corporation wrote a memo that laid out,

in elaborate detail, a plan to influence a prestigious cancer research center.

IARC -- the International Agency for Research on Cancer -- had undertaken a

study on the health effects of secondhand smoke, and the memo prescribed ways to

get the study delayed, diluted, or shelved. But there was a problem: IARC's

reputation was extremely solid. " Our scientists go as far as to state that IARC

is virtually unassailable, " the author noted gloomily.

 

Today, according to some scientists, that reputation is no longer so strong.

These critics charge that IARC, an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO),

has begun inviting the input of scientists with direct and indirect financial

links to the very industries that stand to lose or gain enormously from its

findings. IARC has long been considered the premier research center for

identifying carcinogens, and such a decision could undermine its credibility

and, potentially, its science.

 

The critics include two former top officials of IARC itself. One of them is

James Huff of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who

headed IARC's program on evaluating carcinogens from 1977 until 1980. " There is

a great deal more industry influence at IARC today than there used to be, " Huff

says simply. " And that's a great deal more than there should be. "

 

espite uncounted millions of hours of research and mountains of data, no one

knows in complete detail how cancer forms. Somehow, the genetic code in cells

goes haywire, and a cascade of processes that normally hold the developing

disease in check fails. But science does know, beyond doubt, that some

substances -- from asbestos to benzene to tobacco smoke -- can induce

carcinogenesis, the birth of cancer.

 

When it comes to identifying these substances, no research center in the world

has been as important or credible as IARC. In this country, its findings help

shape rules protecting the public from carcinogens in food, drugs, and the

environment. IARC's work is even more influential internationally, especially in

poor countries that cannot afford sophisticated evaluations of their own.

 

IARC operates out of a modern fifteen-story office building in Lyons, France.

The 270 people on staff study carcinogenesis and cancer prevention and track

cancer worldwide. For each carcinogen evaluation, IARC convenes an international

panel of experts to review existing research on a substance. The panel then

writes a monograph ranking the substance according to its effect on humans, from

not carcinogenic at all to definitely carcinogenic. Every year, IARC publishes

about three volumes of monographs.

 

" The strength of the monographs program was its scientific integrity, " says

Lorenzo Tomatis, an Italian M.D. who was IARC's director from 1982 to 1993.

Originally, explains Tomatis, an internationally respected cancer specialist who

has held research posts at the University of Turin and Chicago Medical School,

panels drew only on published, peer-reviewed research. IARC resisted repeated

requests from industry to allow confidential reviews of secret data from company

labs.

 

Today, that policy has changed. And so has the policy of choosing experts who

have no conflicts of interest. A February letter to WHO, signed by two dozen

university and government scientists from around the world, including Tomatis

and Huff, sharply criticized IARC (and other WHO agencies) for using " research

openly or surreptitiously sponsored by industrial concerns. " The letter also

pointed to " problems of corporate influence and undisclosed conflicts of

interest " among panel members. In fact, scientists with conflicts are now asked

not only to attend meetings as observers, but sometimes to participate as full

voting members.

 

" The people participating are usually very good scientists, " says Tomatis. But

their presence on panels makes the monographs less credible, and raises the

possibility that research in line with industry priorities will receive more

attention than it would otherwise.

 

Consider saccharin. In 1998, IARC reevaluated the sweetener, long ranked a

" possible " carcinogen because of mixed evidence. Michael Jacobson of the Center

for Science in the Public Interest, a health advocacy group, asked whether he

could send a scientist as a nonvoting observer. IARC refused. But other

interested parties had no trouble finding seats. One of the more influential of

the voting panel members was Samuel Cohen of the University of Nebraska, who is

affiliated with a research group called the International Life Sciences

Institute (ILSI). Among ILSI's industry donors at the time were Coca-Cola,

PepsiCo, and the manufacturer of Sweet 'N' Low. Also participating were

scientists from Procter & Gamble and ILSI itself.

 

The panel confirmed that the evidence on saccharin was still mixed. But this

time around, that was no longer considered a red flag. " It was like having a

defense attorney on the jury, " says Jacobson. The panel downgraded saccharin --

reclassifying it from a possible carcinogen to a substance of unknown risk.

Within two years, saccharin was taken off the U.S. list of carcinogens.

 

Lorenzo Tomatis gives a broader example: a critical 1997 IARC workshop held to

review whole categories of evidence for carcinogenicity. There were only a few

completely independent scientists present. The participants decided it was

reasonable for panels to ignore cancer tests that produced tumors in rodents'

bladders, renal cortices, or thyroids, because the tumors probably formed in a

way that could not happen in humans. Yet the workshop participants themselves

agreed that there were " conspicuous gaps in knowledge " about the rodent tumors.

 

Vigilant attention from other scientists, it appears, can help. NRDC

toxicologist Jennifer Sass gives the example of styrene, used in the plastics

and rubber industries. Early this year, Sass discovered that IARC had invited a

former employee of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology to its upcoming

styrene meeting in February. Moreover, IARC had invited -- as full voting

members -- two paid consultants for an industry group, the Styrene Information

and Research Center. One of them had been picked to write the all-important

literature review (a summary of existing research) and present it to the larger

committee.

 

Shortly before the meeting, Sass sent a letter to IARC's director about the

tainted styrene panel -- with a copy to the National Cancer Institute, one of

IARC's major outside funders. Also in February, Sass met with the head of IARC's

carcinogen evaluation unit, Jerry Rice. In the end, the two styrene consultants

recused themselves from voting. And the panel decided to keep styrene's ranking

exactly where it was. " We'll never know what would have happened if we hadn't

complained about the process, " says Sass.

 

omatis and Huff say they see a troubling trend. In separate interviews, both

said the panels are making fewer decisions that prevent potential health risks,

more that protect industry's interests. Some substances given more favorable

rankings recently: the pesticide atrazine; 1,3-butadiene, used in making rubber

and plastics; and rockwool and glasswool insulation such as fiberglass.

 

For their part, IARC officials say adequate safeguards are in place. All

panelists are required to sign a WHO form disclosing financial conflicts of

interest, for instance. But, argues Rice, " It is getting very difficult to find

individuals who have contributed significantly to the scientific literature on

specific chemicals and who have no research funding or other connection with

industry. "

 

Rice may have a point. In 1996, the New England Journal of Medicine decided it

would no longer publish review articles -- which, like IARC panels, require

selection and interpretation of a spectrum of research -- by authors with any

financial links to companies making the product being discussed. Last year, the

journal weakened its policy, saying it was having trouble finding authors.

 

Adds Tomatis, " I would hate to see IARC singled out as a black sheep. There is a

much broader zeitgeist now, where industry seems to be able drive research where

it wants it to go, and where the idea of the independence of science no longer

exists. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jon Luoma has written for National Geographic, The New York Times Magazine, and

Mother Jones. His latest book, about the anatomy of an old-growth ecosystem in

Oregon, is The Hidden Forest.

 

Illustration: Michelle Chang

 

OnEarth. Fall 2002

Copyright 2002 by the Natural Resources Defense Council

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Send Flowers for Valentine's Day