US says American agencies should lead health risk decisions
Washington, June 8
, The Trump administration on Monday said US health and safety regulations should be based on assessments by American scientific agencies rather than conclusions issued by international bodies, criticising the International Agency for Research on Cancer for what it called hazard classifications that can mislead the public and influence policy debates.
In a joint statement, the US Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said international organisations can contribute to scientific discussions, but their findings "should not automatically be treated as definitive in the United States."
The statement specifically targeted IARC, a specialised cancer research agency affiliated with the World Health Organisation (WHO), saying concerns have grown over the "consistency, transparency, and real-world applicability" of some of its cancer hazard assessments.
"Too often, broad classifications based on limited or theoretical risks can create unnecessary public confusion, undermine confidence in everyday products and industries, and lead to policy outcomes that are disconnected from actual exposure and modern scientific standards," the statement said.
The administration argued that IARC's evaluations often fail to distinguish between a potential hazard and actual risk under real-world conditions.
"IARC's findings and monographs often blur the line between hazard and true risk, while diminishing independently verified findings of other research institutions," the statement said.
The administration also accused the agency of promoting what it described as "politicised narratives" that are frequently cited in US legal proceedings and regulatory debates.
"Furthermore, IARC's research provides diminishing returns on scientific enterprise, while advancing politicised narratives that are often cited for US domestic legal contexts," the statement said.
As an example, the statement cited IARC's classifications involving red meat and tobacco products.
"Equating red meat to tobacco products oversimplifies complex scientific discourse and does little to inform sound public health policy that could be of benefit to the American people," it said.
The administration said its approach reflects President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda and seeks to ensure that decisions affecting workers, consumers, farmers and businesses are based on evidence reviewed through US institutions.
"An America First approach to public health means ensuring that decisions affecting U.S. workers, families, farmers, and businesses are guided by transparent, evidence-based processes that reflect America's interests and scientific standards," the statement said.
"The United States will continue to support credible science while prioritising policies that are practical, balanced, and rooted in accountability to the American people," the statement said. "American regulatory decisions should be made by American institutions accountable to the American people."
— IANS
Reader Comments
As someone who follows science from both sides, I think the Trump administration has a point about "politicized narratives." IARC often uses animal studies or high-exposure scenarios to classify things as carcinogens, which doesn't reflect real human risk. For India, maybe we should push for Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to take more leadership on this. But dismissing international science entirely feels like overkill...
Honestly, having lived in both India and US, I see the practical logic here. IARC once classified mobile phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic" while coffee was also lumped in that category - people just get confused. 🙃 But America's approach should be transparent and not just political. India should watch this closely - we need strong domestic regulatory bodies but also global cooperation for public health.
This is about protecting US industries under the guise of scientific independence. They call IARC "politicized" but then promote their own agenda openly. 🎯 The red meat example is funny - equating it with tobacco was indeed too much, but it doesn't mean the whole IARC should be sidelined. For India, we should learn from both US mistakes and WHO successes.
I work in regulatory affairs here in India. The truth is, IARC studies are often cited in Indian courts too. This US move could change how we interpret international data domestically. It's not entirely wrong to question IARC's methodology, but the "America First" framing worries me - it's like saying "my science is better than your science." We need balance, not jingoism.
J Jennifer L