Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Programme identifies chemicals, drugs, mixtures, occupational exposures, lifestyles and personal habits, and physical and biological agents that cause cancer in humans and has evaluated about 1000 agents since 1971. Monographs are written by ad hoc Working Groups (WGs) of international scientific experts over a period of about 12 months ending in an eight-day meeting. The WG evaluates all of the publicly available scientific information on each substance and, through a transparent and rigorous process,1 decides on the degree to which the scientific evidence supports that substance's potential to cause or not cause cancer in humans. For Monograph 112,2 17 expert scientists evaluated the carcinogenic hazard for four insecticides and the herbicide glyphosate.3 The WG concluded that the data for glyphosate meet the criteria for classification as a probable human carcinogen. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the primary agency of the European Union for risk assessments regarding food safety. In October 2015, EFSA reported4 on their evaluation of the Renewal Assessment Report5 (RAR) for glyphosate that was prepared by the Rapporteur Member State, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR). EFSA concluded that ?glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential?. Addendum 1 (the BfR Addendum) of the RAR5 discusses the scientific rationale for differing from the IARC WG conclusion. Serious flaws in the scientific evaluation in the RAR incorrectly characterise the potential for a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to glyphosate. Since the RAR is the basis for the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) conclusion,4 it is critical that these shortcomings are corrected

Risk factors for nasal malignancies in German men: the South-German Nasal cancer study

Background: There are few studies of the effects of nasal snuff and environmental factors on the risk of nasal cancer. This study aimed to investigate the impact of using nasal snuff and of other risk factors on the risk of nasal cancer in German men. Methods: A population-based case-control study was conducted in the German Federal States of Bavaria and Baden-Wurttemberg. Tumor registries and ear, nose and throat departments provided access to patients born in 1926 or later. Results: Telephone interviews were conducted with 427 cases (mean age 62.1 years) and 2.401 population-based controls (mean age 60.8 years). Ever-use of nasal snuff was associated with an odds ratio (OR) for nasal cancer of 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-2.38) in the total study population, whereas OR in smokers was 2.01 (95% CI 1.00-4.02) and in never smokers was 1.10 (95% CI 0.43-2.80). The OR in ever-smokers vs. never-smokers was 1.60 (95% CI 1.24-2.07), with an OR of 1.06 (95% CI 1.05-1.07) per pack-year smoked, and the risk was significantly decreased after quitting smoking. Exposure to hardwood dust for at least 1 year resulted in an OR of 2.33 (95% CI 1.40-3.91) in the total population, which was further increased in never-smokers (OR 4.89, 95% CI 1.92-12.49) in analyses stratified by smoking status. The OR for nasal cancer after exposure to organic solvents for at least 1 year was 1.53 (1.17-2.01). Ever-use of nasal sprays/nasal lavage for at least 1 month rendered an OR of 1.59 (1.04-2.44). The OR after use of insecticides in homes was 1.48 (95% CI 1.04-2.11). Conclusions: Smoking and exposure to hardwood dust were confirmed as risk factors for nasal carcinoma. There is evidence that exposure to organic solvents, and in-house use of insecticides could represent novel risk factors. Exposure to asbestos and use of nasal snuff were risk factors in smokers only