11. Some of the most criticized IARC reports: Alcoholic beverages, Part-III

 

IARC released a monograph on alcohol consumption in 2010 (Vol 96). This monograph was prepared by a working group comprising 27 members drawn from reputed labs of 16 different countries. The monograph focused on beer, wine and spirits (whiskey, brandy, rum, vodka, Scotch and Gin etc..). Working Group concluded that acetaldehyde, the primary metabolite of ethanol, is the carcinogen that leads to the formation of various type of cancer. Working Group concluded that a large body of evidence from epidemiological studies of different design and conducted in different populations consistently shows that consumption of alcoholic beverages is associated with a higher risk for both oral and pharyngeal cancer, and that the risk increases with increasing amounts of alcohol consumed. Compared with non-drinkers, regular consumption of about 50 g alcohol (ethanol) per day (equivalent to about 150 ml of distilled spirits) is associated with an approximately threefold increase in risk oral and pharyngeal cancer cancers, two-fold increase in laryngeal & esophagus cancer. These studies provide firm evidence that the consumption of alcoholic beverages are an independent risk factor for primary liver cancer. The working group found sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of ethanol and acetaldehyde (the ethanol metabolite).  

The working group gave an overall evaluation as follows, 

 ·       Alcoholic beverages are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).

·        Ethanol in alcoholic beverages is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).

As per the data presented in the same IARC monograph, in Eastern European block countries (Belarus, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine), 63.7 % men consume more than 40 g of pure alcohol (in the form of alcoholic beverages) per day. Incidence of cancer in that bloc is supposed to be substantially higher compared to other regions. However, the data presented in the same monograph doesn’t provide the evidence for the same. This appears to be a serious anomaly. 

10. Necessity to evaluate IARC reports on Areca nut and its products

 

Prof. Geoffrey Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine New York, USA, observes that in its assessments of carcinogenicity, IARC places the greatest value on studies in humans, that is, evidence from epidemiologic studies. Interestingly, as per IARC’s own account, the evidence from epidemiological studies shows no indication of a positive association with any cancer with coffee. So, the obvious question is, why wasn’t coffee reassigned to Group 4: “unlikely to cause cancer in humans”?   Yet IARC chose to place coffee in Group 3, which essentially meant “The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans”. Prof. Geoffrey Kabat observes that IARC’s process appears to be afflicted with a deeply-ingrained double standard. He opines that IARC’s assessments are placing too much weight on isolated findings that appear to suggest a risk, while ignoring more solid studies that do not support the existence of risk.

Interestingly, IARC stated in its monograph that “coffee may protect against cancer." But then it went on to justify its designation of “unclassifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans.” This flagrant contradiction highlights the problems with IARC’s process, its classification scheme, and the messages it puts out to the public.

Looking into various controversies created over the years through its reports on coffee, meat and cell phones tec., Prof. Geoffrey Kabat observes that IARC is motivated more by the drive for publicity than by a concern for communicating useful information to the public (Courtesy: IARC Lets Coffee Off The Hook But Only Deepens The Confusion, Jun 18, 2016, Forbes magazine).

Unfortunately, Areca nut and its products are appeared to be the victims of such reports by IARC. Due to the stature and clout of IARC, Indian Govt. is forced to initiate action to curb the consumption of Areca nut. At the same time, any possible ban or the restriction on the consumption of areca nut or its products is going to threaten the lively hood of millions of areca farmers across India.

From this, it is amply clear that there is a necessity to evaluate and scrutinize all the reports of IARC on areca nut and Pan/Tambula from several perspectives. This becomes all the more important in case of areca nut, due to the diverse method of consumption (areca nut of different maturity, different ways of processing and different adjuncts including tobacco), frequency of consumption by an individual, complex mechanism of metabolism of areca nut constituents in human body (yet to be elucidated completely) etc. Being a member of IARC, Indian Government must initiate such action in liaison with IARC.   

                                                    ****

9. Some of the most criticized IARC reports: Coffee, Part-II

 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a monograph in 1991 on the carcinogenic risks caused by coffee (Vol. 51). The monograph was an outcome of year long study and a weak long workshop held in 1990 in Lyon, by a working group comprising 23 experts drawn from 16 countries.  Based on the published literature available from reputed sources, the working group evaluated the reports on epidemiological and experimental studies on the carcinogenicity ln experimental animals, Structure-activity considerations, Absorption, distribution, excretion and metabolism, toxicity, Genetic and related effects, and evidence for carcinogenicity in humans. The working group in its monograph observed that,

·        There is limited evidence in humans that coffee drinking is carcinogenic in the urinary bladder.

·        There is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity of coffee drinking in the human female breast and in the large bowel.

·      There is inadequate evidence in humans that coffee drinking is carcinogenic in the pancreas, ovary and other body sites.

·        There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of coffee.

The working group concluded that,

·        Coffee is possibly carcinogenic to the human urinary bladder (Group 2B).

This attracted widespread criticism on this report among the public, law makers and scientist's world over. This triggered an in-person enquiry of officials of the U.S. government’s health research agency, “National Institute of Health” by the Congressional committee of United States of America (USA), on its grants to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (As per Reuters report dated October 6, 2016). As per the news agency Reuters, the briefing comes after the committee’s chairman added his voice to growing concerns among some senior U.S. lawmakers about the way IARC reviews and classification of substances such as coffee, mobile phones, processed meat and the weed killer glyphosate as carcinogenic. As per Reuters, the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Mr. Jason Chaffetz wrote a letter to the NIH Director, and alleged that “IARC’s standards and determinations for classifying substances as carcinogenic, and therefore cancer-causing, appear inconsistent with other scientific research, and have generated much controversy and alarm” and questioned NIH policy to fund IARC.

In 2016, IARC constituted a working group of 23 members drawn from 11 countries to reevaluate the carcinogenic risk posed by Coffee. They released report in 2016 and brought out a monograph on coffee in 2018 (Vol. 116).

The working group observed in its monograph that,

·       There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of drinking coffee.

·      There is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity of drinking coffee in humans for cancers of the pancreas, liver, female breast, uterine endometrium, and prostate. Inverse associations with drinking coffee have been observed with cancers of the liver and uterine endometrium.

·       There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of coffee.

The working group concluded that,

·        Drinking coffee is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3).

The working group also observed that coffee drinking is associated with a beneficial effect on liver fibrosis and cirrhosis.

This triggered an allegation that IARC takes decisions in haste and retract their findings due to public pressure after the publication of monograph on coffee and glyphosate. IARC’s director, Chris Wild defended IARC’s evaluation of coffee and said that “The (coffee) report in 2016 was not a ‘retraction’ but a re-evaluation based on an additional 25 years of scientific evidence” (As per Reuters report). 

Nevertheless, this is a classic example where IARC has reversed its assessment on a most popular consumer item. 

                                                                      ****

 

8. Some of the most criticized IARC reports: Red and processed meat, Part-I

 

In general, IARC reports and monographs are taken very seriously by Governments, policy makers and scientists throughout the world. These reports often become a basis for creating new policies, implementing various measures to combat cancer and new research initiatives. However, there are instances where IARC reports / monographs have attracted widespread criticism. IARC attracted huge criticism from scientists and general public due to their reports on subjects like red meat, hot beverage consumption and mobile phones etc.

In 2015, working Group comprising 22 experts drawn from 10 countries evaluated the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat & processed meat. After a year long study and deliberations, and a week-long workshop, IARC published a monograph in 2018 (Vol. 114). In the monograph, it was concluded that the “consumption of red meat is probably carcinogenic to humans” & “consumption of processed meat is carcinogenic to humans”. The processed meat has been denoted as Group I carcinogen and red meat as Group 2A carcinogen. It was concluded that the processed meat causes cancer of colorectum, whereas red meat may cause colorectal cancer, and pancreatic and prostate cancer. This was heavily criticized by several senior scientists.

Immediately after the publication of monograph on red meat, researchers from five top universities of South Korea, published a research article in a top-rated international journal called “Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition” (Taylor & Francis Journal) questioning the veracity of the claims that red and processed meat causes cancer of colorectum. The title of the research article was “Controversy on the correlation of red and processed meat consumption with colorectal cancer risk: an Asian perspective”. In the study explained in the article, they had investigated the relationship between meat intake and colorectal cancer risk from an Asian, particularly Korean, perspective. The had conducted an in-depth analysis of prospective, retrospective, case-control and cohort studies, systematic review articles, and IARC monograph reports. They had claimed in their article that the IARC monograph (Vol. 114) is biased and gave higher weightage to the results of studies (published in research article elsewhere) based in Western countries more than the studies conducted on colorectal cancer incidence in Asians. They showed that among 73 epidemiological studies, approximately 76% were conducted in Western countries, whereas only 15% of studies were conducted in Asia. Furthermore, most studies conducted in Asia showed that processed meat consumption is not related to the onset of cancer. Moreover, there have been no reports showing significant correlation between various factors that directly or indirectly affect colorectal cancer incidence, including processed meat product types, raw meat types, or cooking methods.

Note: As per IARC, the agents/substances are classified as Group 1, if the agent is carcinogenic to humans; Group 2A if the agent is probably carcinogenic to humans.

****

7. Summary of IARC reports

 

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has published four monographs so for on areca nut, its products (betel quid / Pan, Gutka, Mawa, Pan masala) and also chewable tobacco used along with areca nut. The monographs are an outcome of thorough analysis of research papers published in reputed journals by chosen experts, drawn from multiple nations across the world. The overall conclusions were as follows,

·        Betel quid with tobacco is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).

·        Smokeless tobacco is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).

·        Betel quid without tobacco is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).

·        Areca nut is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).

·        There is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in experimental animals for betel leaf.

·        There is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in experimental animals for slaked lime.

·        Arecoline is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).

In a very clear terms, it was stated that all forms of chewable tobacco are carcinogenic. Areca nut mixed with tobacco (Gutka, Mawa, Pan) will certainly cause cancer. Interestingly, it states that betel quid (Pan / Tambula) without tobacco also causes cancer. Furthermore, it was concluded that areca nut is also carcinogenic similar to tobacco. Interestingly, slaked lime & betel leaf, essential ingredients of betel quid / Pan are stated to be safe. Most interestingly, the monographs fail to show conclusive evidence of carcinogenicity of arecoline, or other prominent alkaloids present in areca nut.

These monographs created huge uproar against areca nut and its products, globally. The cancer biologists, research community dealing with human health, doctors, policy makers and Government of several developed countries started initiating measures to curb the consumption of areca nut and its products. This also created a renewed interest in the research groups throughout the world to take up studies dealing with areca nut consumption and subsequent effect on human health.  

Note: as per IARC, the agents/substances are classified as Group 1, if the agent is carcinogenic to humans; Group 2B if the agent is possibly carcinogenic (not yet proven conclusively) to humans.

                                                                   ****