Background

From 1958 to 1970, >100,000 people in northern Chile were exposed to a well-documented, distinct period of high drinking water arsenic concentrations. We previously reported ecological evidence suggesting that early-life exposure in this population resulted in increased mortality in adults from several outcomes, including lung and bladder cancer.

Methods

We have now completed the first study ever assessing incident cancer cases after early-life arsenic exposure, and the first study on this topic with individual participant exposure and confounding factor data. Subjects included 221 lung and 160 bladder cancer cases diagnosed in northern Chile from 2007 to 2010, and 508 age and gender-matched controls.

Results

ORs adjusted for age, sex, and smoking in those only exposed in early life to arsenic water concentrations of ≤110, 110 to 800, and >800 μg/L were 1.00, 1.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-3.71], and 5.24 (3.05-9.00; P(trend) < 0.001) for lung cancer, and 1.00, 2.94 (1.29-6.70), and 8.11 (4.31-15.25; P(trend) < 0.001) for bladder cancer. ORs were lower in those not exposed until adulthood. The highest category (>800 μg/L) involved exposures that started 49 to 52 years before, and ended 37 to 40 years before the cancer cases were diagnosed.

Conclusion

Lung and bladder cancer incidence in adults was markedly increased following exposure to arsenic in early life, even up to 40 years after high exposures ceased. Such findings have not been identified before for any environmental exposure, and suggest that humans are extraordinarily susceptible to early-life arsenic exposure.

Impact

Policies aimed at reducing early-life exposure may help reduce the long-term risks of arsenic-related disease.

Background

Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also for the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that failures of IARC Working Groups to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.

Objectives

The authors of this Commentary are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We examined criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. Here, we present the results of that examination, review the history of IARC evaluations, and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.

Discussion

We concluded that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various disciplines and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.

Conclusions

The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.