#IARC

[desertfragments]

:dead its finals week

[sns124]

Guidelines for Usage of Artificial Sweetners -Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

source: Posted On: 08 AUG 2023 5:08PM by PIB Delhi Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has informed that assessment of the health impacts of the non-sugar sweetener aspartame conducted by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as well as World Health Organization – Food and Agriculture Organization (WHO-FAO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) cite “limited…

[nuadox]

Does this cause cancer? How scientists determine whether a chemical is carcinogenic – sometimes with controversial results

- By Brad Reisfeld , Colorado State University , The Conversation -

People are exposed to numerous chemicals throughout their lifetimes. These chemicals can be from the air, foods, personal care items, household products and medications. Unfortunately, exposure to certain chemicals can cause harmful health effects, including cancer. 

Substances that cause cancer are called carcinogens. Familiar examples include tobacco smoke, radon, asbestos and diesel engine exhaust.

To protect the health of the public, national and international health agencies evaluate many new and existing chemicals to determine if they are likely to be carcinogens in a process called cancer hazard identification. If agencies judge the chemicals to be carcinogenic, they conduct further assessments to determine the level of risk, and legislators may put regulations in place to limit, or completely halt, the production and use of these chemicals.

I am a scientist who studies how the human body processes foreign chemicals, like environmental pollutants and drugs, and the effects of these chemicals on health. As part of my work, I have participated in chemical and cancer hazard identifications for several agencies, including the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Here’s how chemicals can cause cancer, and how we classify chemicals based on on how carcinogenic they are – sometimes with controversial results.

How do chemicals cause cancer?

The mechanisms behind how toxic chemicals can lead to cancer are complex.

After a person is exposed to a carcinogen, the chemical is generally absorbed into the body and distributed into different tissues. Once the chemical has moved into the cells, it often undergoes chemical reactions that convert it into other forms.

The products of these reactions can directly or indirectly affect the cell’s genes. Altering genes, which contain the cell’s instructions on how to produce specific molecules, or the processes that regulate them can ultimately result in dysfunctional cells if the genetic damage isn’t repaired. These cells don’t respond normally to cellular signals and can grow and divide at abnormal rates, which are characteristic features of cancer cells.

How are chemicals classified for carcinogenicity?

To help safeguard the public and reduce the incidence of cancer, several agencies have developed procedures to classify and categorize chemicals based on their potential to be carcinogenic.

Among them are the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC Monographs; the National Toxicology Program, or NTP; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA. In general, these agencies examine a critical question: How strong is the evidence that a substance causes cancer or biological changes that could be related to cancer in people? Understanding the procedures used to answer this question can help with interpreting the decisions these agencies make.

The procedures used by the IARC – because of its long history, credibility and strong international reputation – provide a good example of how this process works. It’s designed to be transparent and minimize bias, spanning over a year from selecting a chemical for evaluation to its final classification.

In this process, the IARC selects and invites a panel of scientific experts on the chemical to be evaluated. The panel does not conduct new research on its own, but carefully reviews all available papers in the scientific literature on the chemical’s carcinogenicity in cell and bacterial cultures, animals and people. To assess the strength of the evidence, the panel carefully considers the number of studies that are available and the consistency of the results, as well as the scientific quality and relevance of each study to cancer in people.

Chemicals can be carcinogenic to varying degrees.

After discussing and deliberating on the results, the panel makes a final consensus classification. This classification places the chemical into one of four groups: Group 1 indicates that the chemical is carcinogenic to people, Group 2A that it is probably carcinogenic to people, Group 2B that it is possibly carcinogenic to people, and Group 3 that it is not classifiable. A Group 3 classification does not indicate that the compound is not carcinogenic, but rather that the panel could not draw a conclusion about whether there is a causal link between the chemical and cancer from available studies. For example, exposure to several chemicals can make it unclear which ones are responsible for a later cancer diagnosis.

During its 50-year history, the IARC has evaluated and classified over 1,000 chemicals and other hazards. Many of these classifications have had broad societal implications, such as those for tobacco smoke, ambient air pollution, diesel engine exhaust and processed meat. All were classified as Group 1, or confirmed to be carcinogenic to humans. Electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones was classified as Group 2B, or possibly carcinogenic, and red meat was classified as Group 2A, or probably carcinogenic. Though they haven’t directly led to any regulations, these classifications have motivated additional scientific studies. While the IARC can advise regulators, it’s up to countries to implement policies.

It is important to note that classifications do not indicate the size of the risk but are important in supporting health agencies worldwide as they implement actions to limit exposures to known, probable and possible carcinogens. In 2020, when the IARC classified opium consumption as Group 1, or carcinogenic to humans, this led the government of Iran to implement policies to reduce opium addiction in the country.

Controversies in carcinogenicity classifications

Though classifications from the IARC are based on robust scientific evidence, some have proved to be controversial.

For instance, in 2015, the IARC evaluated the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, a widely used weedkiller found in products like Roundup, which is produced by Monsanto. A panel of 17 experts from 11 countries systematically reviewed results from over 1,000 scientific studies and classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” or Group 2A.

Owing to its widespread usage and multibillion-dollar market value, a cancer classification decision for glyphosate has significant potential financial and legal consequences. Following its evaluation, the IARC received support from many regulatory and scientific bodies but was criticized by others. Other agencies, including the EPA, have seen similar controversies and politicization of their hazard identifications and regulatory decisions.

I believe that agencies like the IARC play a critical role in evaluating the health effects of certain chemicals and in reducing exposure to potential carcinogens. Helping people better understand how these agencies evaluate chemicals can go a long way to ensure transparency and help protect environmental and public health.

Brad Reisfeld, Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

--

Read Also

Pesticide seed coatings are common yet underreported

[mindblowingscience]

The World Health Organization's cancer agency on Friday classified talc as "probably carcinogenic" for humans, however an outside expert warned against misinterpreting the announcement as a "smoking gun". The decision was based on "limited evidence" talc could cause ovarian cancer in humans, "sufficient evidence" it was linked to cancer in rats and "strong mechanistic evidence" that it shows carcinogenic signs in human cells, the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said. Talc is a naturally occurring mineral which is mined in many parts of the world and is often used to make talcum baby powder.

Continue Reading.

[ms-demeanor]

not be suuuuuuper annoying but the concerns raised about aspartame by the WHO are almost entirely regarding its potential carcinogen status and not seizures. specifically, as a "possible" carcinogen, group 2B, which, while very far removed from confirmed carcinogens, becomes a very real concern because some people consume aspartame in very large quantities on a daily basis, like 12 cans of diet coke a day, no problem.

so yes, there's a great deal of ridiculous charlatan-style behavior surrounding aspartame, but that's not really related to the actual research being done. we can't look to rodent studies as the end-all-be-all, and even human observational studies dimly linking cancer to aspartame must be taken with a huge grain of salt, because, again, observational study, but when it comes to super-long-term-consumption of an ingredient and the potential for cancer, it's not unreasonable to evaluate your personal risk tolerance and decide it's not a bad idea to reduce or eliminate aspartame from your diet

tldr (do people still use this term?): the actual concerns about aspartame aren't about sensitivity or seizures and it cannot be conclusively said to be completely safe, but at the same time it's not a huge deal especially if you don't ingest that much of it regularly

sorry for being so annoying about this shit :( <3

So that report came out a year after I had started doing the research so it obviously didn't come up in my original deep dive and the WHO's findings on aspartame as being possibly carcinogenic are pretty much in line with prior recommended limits on aspartame consumption.

I'm not going to deny that there are some people who consume 12 cans of diet sodas a day, but I do want to point out that people who are consuming 12 cans of diet soda are drinking more than a gallon of soda each day. This is a tiny number of consumers (the vast majority of consumers drink 16oz or less a day of *any* kind of soda, diet or otherwise). At that point you don't just need to worry about the aspartame, you need to worry about what that's doing to your sodium intake as a much more proven risk (12 cans of diet coke a day gives you about half a gram more salt than would otherwise be in your diet), or be concerned about the possible connection between artificial sweeteners and metabolic syndrome.

And I really just cannot emphasize enough that the vast, vast majority of people aren't consuming more than 5 cans of diet soda daily, let alone 10 - aspartame consumption among people who use aspartame is in the 5-13mg/kg range, not in the 40-50mg/kg range except for a few very rare cases.

Humans are bad at risk assessment. People look at the IARC reclassification and look at their own (typically very small) aspartame consumption, and will stop drinking diet drinks (and will often tell other people to stop drinking diet drinks).

Drinking somewhere in the neighborhood of a gallon of diet soda each day is possibly carcinogenic, or at the very least *not provably not cancer-causing* and people have been talking about it and writing thinkpieces about it and the anti-aspartame crew has been insufferable about it since July made.

So what has happened here is that a very reasonable organization has made a very reasonable category change to a chemical that switched it from "known not to cause cancer" to "not known to not cause cancer" and the anti-aspartame crew has continued to list cancer, and neurological problems, and seizures, and a whole host of other things as the results of aspartame consumption.

And, like, I'm not calling these people charlatans for this paper but jesus christ:

Actually maybe I am going to call these people charlatans. This all links back to the "aspartame metabolizes as formaldehyde and poisons you" thing (which a lot of the extremely suspect research on aspartame does).

People are *absolutely* still doing research into the more absurd claims of anti-aspartame activists. This paper was published *this month* (and relies on the self-reported memories of mothers of autistic children to recall how much aspartame they consumed during pregnancy, which is not going to be a *great* set of data to analyze)

But anyway, before I go down that rabbit hole, let's get back to cancer and cancer risk. It is, of course, totally okay for you to look at the designation of aspartame as a 2B substance and decide that you don't want to use aspartame anymore, that you think it's too much of a risk.

You know what's in IARC category 2A, or probably carcinogenic to humans?

Drinking hot tea. Or coffee. Or water. Or cocoa.

Drinking liquid over 65 degrees Celsius/ 149 degrees fahrenheit is biologically plausible as a cause of cell damage that may lead to cancer. There is more evidence of this connection than the connection between aspartame and cancer.

You know what we called 150 degrees when I was working at the coffee shop? Kid hot. Because that's how hot you can make hot cocoa for kids so it is warm enough to be hot cocoa but won't burn their tongues. If you serve most adults coffee or tea at 150 degrees they'll consider it cold (or at least not as hot as a hot drink should be). Starbucks doesn't serve hot coffee at under 165F and if you ask for extra hot it'll be closer to 180.

The IARC report listing hot beverages as category 2A means that it's not unreasonable to evaluate your personal risk tolerance and decide it's not a bad idea to reduce or eliminate liquids over 65C from your diet.

But nobody is doing that.

Basically more research needs to be done on everything and you're not being annoying, the way that human brains work and assess risk and set up phantoms to get scared of even when there are much bigger and realer risks (like consuming any amount of alcohol on a regular basis) that people are perfectly willing to overlook.

It's like being afraid of plane crashes but cheerfully getting in your car for a 20 mile daily commute with no concerns or worries because it's something you do every day.

Brains! They're annoying!

[thoughtlessarse]

Talc was classified as “probably carcinogenic” due in part to limited evidence linking it to ovarian cancer, an international agency said. Talc was classified as “probably carcinogenic” to humans by the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO). A working group of 29 scientists from 13 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, and published their findings in The Lancet Oncology last week. The classification is the “second highest level of certainty that a substance can cause cancer”. Talc’s previous classification was as a “possible carcinogen.” Talc was classified “on the basis of a combination of limited evidence for cancer in humans (for ovarian cancer), sufficient evidence for cancer in experimental animals, and strong mechanistic evidence that talc exhibits key characteristics of carcinogens in human primary cells and experimental systems,” the group of experts said in a press release. Their conclusions were based on several studies showing an increased risk of ovarian cancer in women who use talcum powder in the genital area but a causal link "could not be fully established". -Among the general population, talc is most well-known as a white baby powder, but the mineral is also a common component in makeup and skincare products. People can also be exposed to the powder when it is mined, milled or processed or when making products out of it.

continue reading

[kennak]

[IARC]核施設労働者のイオン化放射線への低線量ばく露後の白血病、リンパ腫、多発性骨髄腫死亡率(INWORKS)：国際コホート研究の更新知見 Leukaemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma mortality after low-level exposure to ionising radiation in nuclear workers (INWORKS): updated findings from an international cohort study – IARC (who.int) https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/leukaemia-lymphoma-and-multiple-myeloma-mortality-after-low-level-exposure-to-ionising-radiation-in-nuclear-workers-inworks/ The Lancet Haematologyに発表 イオン化放射線への低線量長期暴露と白血病（慢性リンパ球性白血病を除く）、慢性骨髄性白血病、急性骨髄性白血病、骨髄異形成症候群、多発性骨髄腫による死亡率とに正の関連を発見した。1グレイ当たりの白血病による死亡率の増加は250%以上と推定され (excess relative rate [ERR] per Gy, 2.68; 90%信頼区間, 1.13–4.55)、過剰率は線形用量反応モデルで合理的に記述できる。この研究での労働者の被ばく線量は0.016Gyと低く、放射線による白血病での絶対死亡率は10万人35年間あたり13と推定された（放射線暴露のないヒトでの慢性リンパ球性白血病を除く白血病の死亡250と比較） この研究で推定されたEERは日本の原爆生存者での放射線影響研究で推定された2.75/Gyと近い。

2024-09-03 - 野良猫　食情報研究所

[pinkprettycure]

I linked the contents warning on the itch page and the websites about page for the game.

The T rating is based from the google play IARC questionnaire i did the other day so it should be pretty accurate. it's not just me feeling for a vibe lol.

I think the jarring part of the CWs probably just comes from the aesthetic being so bright and colorful then u see the warnings and are beat over the head with a chair with "abuse, body horror, and death" 😭 most of this stuff isn't going to be TOO shocking if u already played the og demo tho which already had blood and mentions of death, but the stakes get a lil crazier in later eps... Ppl who already played those ones know what to expect lol, some of the descriptions were polished some between builds but yeah.

I promise its not anything crazier than some the stuff in kamen rider n shit lmao and im not tryna pull a madoka on yall 😭

[gorgeousgreymatter-x]

my face when everyone I know tries to gloat to me about aspartame MAYBE getting added to the IARC 2B classification as a POSSIBLE carcinogen and I have to tell them the bad news about coffee and aloe vera and pickled vegetables (and not pictured but on the list: things tumblr is known to enjoy such as *checks notes* ah yes HOT BEVERAGES)

[arcobalengo]

"Uno dei dolcificanti artificiali più comuni al mondo sarà dichiarato il mese prossimo possibile cancerogeno da un importante organismo sanitario globale, secondo due fonti a conoscenza del processo, contrapponendolo all'industria alimentare e regolatori.

L'aspartame, utilizzato in prodotti dalle bibite dietetiche della Coca-Cola alla gomma da masticare Extra di Mars e alcune bevande Snapple, sarà elencato a luglio come "possibile cancerogeno per l'uomo" per la prima volta dall'Agenzia internazionale per la ricerca sul cancro (IARC), il braccio di ricerca sul cancro dell'OMS, hanno detto le fonti a Reuters."

Credo di saperlo da tipo 15 anni... Non hanno lavorato alla "velocità della scienza" in questo caso.. 🤨

Unisciti al mio canale Telegram

@monicaelis

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/whos-cancer-research-agency-say-aspartame-sweetener-possible-carcinogen-sources-2023-06-29/#:~:text=Aspartame%2C%20used%20in%20products%20from,research%20arm%2C%20the%20sources%20told

IARC.. Ci fosse ancora Lorenzo Tomatis come direttore... Leggetevi il suo libro "Il fuoriuscito"

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazilian authority follows WHO on aspartame warning

Brazil’s National Cancer Institute (INCA) has issued a warning against the consumption of aspartame, after the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the artificial sweetener as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the WHO and the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) released an assessment of aspartame’s health impacts last week. The findings of their “separate but complementary reviews” concluded that there is limited evidence of the additive causing cancer in humans. The JECFA re-affirmed the acceptable daily intake limit for aspartame of 40 mg/kg of body weight.

WHO scientists stressed that the findings indicate the need for more and better independent research on aspartame, which has been widely used as an artificial sweetener in food and beverages since the 1980s. It is typically found in foods labeled as low-calorie and sugar-free drinks such as Diet Coke, and can also be present in products such as sugar-free gum, toothpaste, and medications such as cough drops.

Continue reading.

[lastscenecom]

国際がん研究組織（IARC）の報告では、加工肉を毎日食べた場合、50gごとに大腸がんを患う確率が18％上昇する。 国立がん研究センターによると、日本人の加工肉摂取量は1日当たり13gです。これは世界的に見て最も摂取量が低い国の1つとしています。 国立がん研究センターは加工肉については、男女とも摂取量と大腸がんとの関連は見られなかったと結論付けています。

「ハム」や「ベーコン」は安くておいしい家計の味方！ でも「加工肉」はあまり身体に良くないって本当？ 普通に食べる分には問題はない？ 理由を解説（ファイナンシャルフィールド） - Yahoo!ニュース

[spiritualdirections]

"For the first time, an oral contraceptive is going to be available over the counter, without a prescription. On July 13, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it has approved the contraceptive pill Opill. Many are praising the FDA’s decision as a significant step toward making contraception more widely available. Perrigo Company, the pill's Dublin-based manufacturer, stated that Opill will most likely be available in grocery and convenience stores, as well as online, in early 2024. Perrigo’s president and CEO Murray Kessler called the FDA’s decision “a new, groundbreaking chapter in reproductive health.”  "It may indeed be groundbreaking—but not for the reason Kessler believes. Contrary to popular myth, increased use of contraception is correlated to an increase in abortions. And despite what proponents claim, hormonal birth control has a damaging effect on both mental and physical health...Opill, like other forms of hormonal birth control, primarily consists of progestin, “a hormone that thickens mucus in the cervix to make it harder for sperm to enter the uterus,” according to the New York Times. Opill is said to be less effective than pills with both progestin and estrogen, yet defenders of the FDA’s decision say that Opill is still highly effective as long as it is taken at the same time every day."

The article makes the point, which everyone who studies this knows, that the pill actually increases nonmarital pregnancies, because the pill requires regular use, and the kind of people who are not disciplined enough to wait until marriage are often also not disciplined enough to take a pill every day. This version of the pill seems to require an extraordinary high level of discipline--it must be taken at the same time every day. "Unintended" pregnancies in the U.S. basically never occur because contraceptives aren't available, but because the couple does not use them properly.

The article also makes the point about the extensively documented link between the pill and depression, which I've blogged about before. It might have mentioned the link between the pill and blood clotting, which might be dangerous if the pill is taken over the counter and the user is not in touch with a doctor.

The article does not make a point that it easily could have, that this is a huge win for Big Pharma. Notice that it is the CEO who calls this "groundbreaking." I'm assuming the Biden administration will get its fair share of donations this cycle.

The article also does not discuss something that I think is relevant. Typical birth control pills are on the list of known carcinogens by the International Agency for Research for Canger (IARC), a project of the World Health Organization. They are in category 1, the same as tobacco. It's likely that the explosion in cases of breast cancer over the last 50 years is caused by increasingly widespread use of the hormones in the pill. The CDC says that using the pill increases a woman's chances of breast and cervical cancers by as much as 60%. As I wrote a few years ago, "It’s safer to smoke 5-8 cigars daily (relative risk of cancer 1.17; see Table 3)–which almost nobody does–than to be on the Pill (relative risk 1.24 for current users)." 

(The article does not say more about whether the reduced amount of estrogen is intended to make Opill less carcinogenic, but I can't imagine that we have sufficient data on this particular pill to determine this.)

The argument for having restrictions on tobacco sales is that tobacco causes cancer. The same argument should argue for at least the same restrictions on Opill. Defenders of the pill will point to studies that show the likelihood of cancer drops off once someone stops using the pill (as in the CDC link above); the likelihood of cancer also drops off once someone quits smoking cigarettes. Given these parallels, I would think that states would want to pass laws restricting over the counter sales of either carcinogen to minors.

The more people become aware that playing with the hormones in the body is not that safe, the more people will switch to using fertility awareness methods, which are natural and more in tune with the environment. But these natural methods don't make Big Pharma any money!

[the-sayuri-rin]

The World Health Organization has declared aspartame, a common artificial sweetener used in thousands of products, to be "possibly carcinogenic to humans" — while also noting that "safety is not a major concern" in the quantities people would normally consume.

WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, categorized the sweetener in Group 2B on the basis of "limited evidence for cancer in humans," specifically for hepatocellular carcinoma, a type of liver cancer, according to a news release.

[rabbitboy]

――それでも「2B　発がん性がある可能性がある」とされると、メディアはそこを強調して伝えます。一般の人も「2Bだから大丈夫だよね」とはなかなか思えず、長期間とり続けた人は心配してしまうのではないでしょうか。 IARCの2Bは一般の人にとってはあまり意味がなくて、研究者に対してデータがないのでもっと研究しましょうという程度のものなのですが、皆の良く知っているものを取り上げて騒ぎにしようと意図的にやっている節があります。 今回の発表前、6月30日にロイターが「最初の記事「独占：WHOのがん研究機関、甘味料アスパルテームは発がん物質の可能性があると発表へ – 情報筋」と記事を掲載しました。IARCのワーキンググループメンバーあるいはオブザーバーが、機密保持の同意書に署名しておきながら事前に内容をリークしたものです。7月14日にJECFAと一緒に発表すると、自分たちの発表は目立たなくなると考えたのでしょう。活動家のやることに、誠実さは期待できません。

アスパルテームの安全性　畝山智香子さんに聞く – FOOCOM.NET

[ms-demeanor]

thank you for the extremely well reasoned response. you make a bunch of really fantastic points that link together in a way that's nice and comprehendible. and i really appreciate you digging into my question/more-of-a-comment-really. i think part of my problem is that i'm surrounded by weird health corner case people and simultaneously am extremely risk averse (no alcohol for reasons, very rare hot beverages, no caffeine, the list goes on) so you are a refreshing breath of sanity.

thank you <3

-aspartame anon

*sympathy fistbumps* spending a lot of time around food allergy and chronic illness communities online has some overlap with that and it can put you in a weird headspace.

For what it's worth, I think you're cool on the aspartame, caffeine, and the hot drinks. Remember that the IARC standards aren't about how likely something is to cause cancer in individuals, it's about the overall strength of the evidence that the thing has caused cancer in at least some cases. There is fairly strong evidence that hot drinks can cause cancer; that does not mean that drinking hot drinks is likely to cause cancer or that drinking hot drinks increases your risk of certain kinds of cancer.

Have a good day, and maybe a warm drink!