IARC in the dock over ties with asbestos industry

Our plain-English summary of IARC in the dock over ties with asbestos industry, by D. Holmes (Lancet, 2013).

The study

• Author: D. Holmes
• Journal: Lancet
• Published: 2013;381(9864):359-61
• Type of article: News
• Cited by: 8 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Summary of the article

This news report in The Lancet's World Report section described criticism of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of WHO, over alleged ties with the asbestos industry. In late 2012, IARC accepted an invitation from the Russian Scientific Research Institute of Occupational Health (SRIOH), a joint organiser, to send one of its scientists, Valerie McCormack, to present data at a conference in Kiev, Ukraine, entitled Chrysotile Asbestos: Risk Assessment and Management. The Italian Minister of Health and others had urged IARC not to attend. The report stated that the presentation used a 2000 estimate by Hodgson and Darnton of the relative mesothelioma risk of chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite (1:100:500). It omitted the same authors' 2009 revision (1:10:50). The report also described objections to IARC's collaboration with SRIOH on a historical cohort study of cancer mortality among chrysotile workers in Asbest, Russia, led by Evgeny Kovalevskiy. These objections came in a letter from Richard Lemen, Arthur Frank and Barry Castleman, who described him as a leading promoter of chrysotile use. An IARC spokesperson, Nicolas Gaudin, said the conference was an opportunity to emphasise the dangers of asbestos and that IARC was not associated with the conference resolution. He also said the Asbest study was not a condition of Russia's resumed financial contributions. The report placed these events before the April 2013 Rotterdam Convention meeting, which would again consider listing chrysotile in Annex III. Canada had dropped its opposition, and Russia would for the first time have the power to veto. Campaigners argued that the Kiev conference and the IARC collaboration supported Russia's opposition to the listing.

PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

In plain English

This was not a research study but a news report from The Lancet's World Report section, by David Holmes. It described criticism of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) for sending a scientist to a conference in Kiev, Ukraine, on chrysotile asbestos, and for working with a Russian institute on a study of cancer deaths among chrysotile workers in Asbest, Russia. The article reported that Italy's Minister of Health urged IARC to shun the conference. It also reported that the IARC presentation used a 2000 estimate that chrysotile caused one case of mesothelioma for every 100 caused by amosite and 500 caused by crocidolite, and left out the same researchers' 2009 revised ratio of 1:10:50. Critics objected to the Russian study's lead scientist, whom they called a promoter of chrysotile asbestos use. An IARC spokesperson said the talk was meant to emphasise the dangers of asbestos. The spokesperson also said the Russian study was not a condition of Russia's funding. The conference statement called listing chrysotile under the Rotterdam Convention premature. IARC said it was not involved in that resolution.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: News report (Lancet World Report journalism); no original data
• Who was studied: Not a study population. The subject was IARC's attendance at a conference on chrysotile asbestos in Kiev, Ukraine, and its collaboration with the Russian Scientific Research Institute of Occupational Health (SRIOH) on a cohort study at the Uralasbest plant in Asbest, Russia.
• Exposure: Chrysotile asbestos, the topic of the Kiev conference and of the Russian collaborative study
• Main results:
  • The article reported that the Italian Minister of Health, on behalf of the Italian Government, wrote to IARC urging it to shun the Kiev conference.
  • An IARC spokesperson said the conference was an opportunity to stress that the lung cancer burden from asbestos is, in absolute numbers, much larger than the mesothelioma burden.
  • The IARC presentation used a 2000 Hodgson and Darnton table in which chrysotile caused one mesothelioma case for every 100 caused by amosite and 500 caused by crocidolite. The same authors' 2009 revised ratio of 1:10:50 was omitted.
  • A letter from Richard Lemen, Arthur Frank and Barry Castleman objected that Evgeny Kovalevskiy, whom they described as a promoter of chrysotile asbestos use, was lead scientist on an IARC chrysotile research project.
  • The letter's authors noted that WHO Director-General Margaret Chan had earlier withdrawn SRIOH's designation as a WHO collaborating centre.
  • The IARC spokesperson stated that the Asbest study was not discussed at Governing Council sessions and was not a condition of the Russian Federation's renewed participation or financial contributions.
  • The Kiev conference consensus statement concluded that including chrysotile in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention was premature. IARC said it was not involved in, or a signatory to, that resolution. A campaigner said IARC's attendance lent the conference a "veneer of respectability".
• The authors' conclusion: As a news report, the article reported allegations and IARC's responses and stated no conclusion of its own.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Chrysotile.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: IARC, Chrysotile, Mesothelioma, Amosite, Crocidolite, Cohort Study.

Related studies

• Controversies at international organizations over asbestos industry influence — B.I. Castleman (2001)
• WTO confidential: the case of asbestos. World Trade Organization — B. Castleman (2002)
• The International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) and its influence on international organizations — N.A. Ashford, B. Castleman, et al. (2002)
• Industry influence on IAOH — T.K. Joshi (2008)
• Corporate corruption of medical literature: asbestos studies concealed by W.R. Grace & Co — D. Egilman, W. Wallace, et al. (1998)
• How conflicted authors undermine the World Health Organization (WHO) campaign to stop all use of asbestos: spotlight on studies showing that chrysotile is carcinogenic and facilitates other non-cancer asbestos-related diseases — X. Baur, C.L. Soskolne, et al. (2015)

Browse more research in Lancet, or return to medical research.