Administration Takes Surprising Step Against International Agency Behind “Made-for-Litigation” Junk Science
After years of exposing the troubling conflicts of interest and questionable scientific practices associated with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an affiliate of the World Health Organization, ATRF welcomes a surprising but significant announcement from the Trump Administration.
On June 8, the Departments of Health and Human Services and State, led by Secretaries Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marco Rubio, issued a joint statement criticizing IARC’s role in promoting exaggerated scientific claims that create “unnecessary public confusion” and “undermine confidence in everyday products and industries.”
The statement reaffirmed the primacy of U.S. regulatory agencies in evaluating health risks for Americans and specifically highlighted concerns about organizations whose research advances “politicized narratives that are often cited for U.S. domestic legal contexts.” It further questioned the “consistency, transparency, and real-world applicability” of certain IARC assessments.
Everything Causes Cancer
The organization is well known for finding that pretty much any substance or activity may “cause” cancer. As Reuters has reported, over four decades, IARC has studied nearly 1,000 substances and activities and found only one was ‘probably not’ likely to cause cancer in humans. For example, according to IARC, being a pilot causes cancer, as does working as a painter or using a mobile phone. IARC has rated processed meats, wood dust, and Chinese salted meats at the same cancer-causing level as plutonium and mustard gas. IARC has even deemed “drinking very hot beverages” as “probably carcinogenic.”
IARC’s Central Role in Roundup Litigation
IARC’s 2015 classification of glyphosate—the active ingredient in the widely used herbicide Roundup—as “probably carcinogenic” has become the cornerstone of thousands of lawsuits alleging that Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Yet IARC’s conclusion stands in stark contrast to the findings of hundreds of other scientific studies, as well as evaluations conducted by regulatory authorities around the world, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Health Canada, which have concluded that glyphosate can be used safely when applied according to label directions.
ATRF has extensively documented concerns surrounding IARC’s glyphosate report. Among the most troubling revelations was the involvement of Christopher Portier, an “invited specialist” with no prior expertise in glyphosate who advised the working group while simultaneously receiving compensation from anti-pesticide advocacy organizations and law firms pursuing glyphosate litigation.
It was later revealed that after Portier became involved, the final IARC monograph was altered in numerous instances to remove, revise, or reverse findings that had previously found no evidence of carcinogenicity. These changes have fueled longstanding concerns that IARC’s process was vulnerable to outside influences and produced conclusions that were readily weaponized in litigation.
Kennedy’s Unexpected Reversal
The Administration’s criticism of IARC is particularly noteworthy given Secretary Kennedy’s longstanding ties to the plaintiffs’ bar.
Before entering public service, Kennedy worked as a trial lawyer and was involved in several high-profile mass tort matters, including litigation related to Roundup and vaccines. During his confirmation process, questions arose regarding his financial interests in ongoing litigation. In response, Kennedy pledged to divest certain interests involving vaccine-related cases by transferring them to one of his sons, a trial lawyer at Wisner Baum which is still pursuing Roundup lawsuits and cites IARC as its main source of evidence.
