Article Text

Download PDFPDF

0375 Epidemiologic evidence for risk assessment – how successful have we been?
  1. Dana Loomis
  1. IARC, Lyon, France


Studies of workers have played a central role in identifying human carcinogens. For more than a third of the approximately 100 agents classified as carcinogenic (Group 1) by IARC with sufficient evidence in humans, the critical evidence was provided by occupational epidemiologic studies. Data from occupational studies has also contributed important evidence to identifying over 300 possibly or probably carcinogenic agents. Nevertheless, the contribution of occupational epidemiology could be improved. Beyond clear reporting of methods and results, the greatest need is for quantitative assessment of exposure and analysis of exposure-response relations. The political context of carcinogen assessment imposes barriers of a different kind. Actions by actors with vested interests to intimidate scientists, stifle debate and derail risk assessment are well documented. Recent evaluations of the herbicide glyphosate will be discussed as a case example.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.