Abstract

The monograph program of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which relies on the efforts of volunteer Working Groups, uses a transparent approach to evaluate the carcinogenicity of agents for which scoping has determined that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a review. Because of the potentially powerful implications of the conclusions of the monographs and the sometimes challenging nature of the evidence reviewed, the monographs and the IARC process have been criticized from time to time. This commentary describes the IARC monograph process and addresses recent criticisms of the program, drawing on a recent defense of the program authored by 124 researchers. These authors concluded that the IARC processes are robust and transparent and not flawed and biased as suggested by some critics.