The fifth Jack Pepys Workshop on Asthma in the Workplace focused on the similarities and differences of work-related asthma (WRA) and non-work-related asthma (non-WRA). WRA includes occupational asthma (OA) and work-exacerbated asthma (WEA). There are few biological differences in the mechanisms of sensitization to environmental and occupational allergens. Non-WRA and OA, when due to high-molecular-weight agents, are both IgE mediated; it is uncertain whether OA due to low-molecular-weight agents is also IgE mediated. Risk factors for OA include female sex, a history of upper airway symptoms, and a history of bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Atopy is a risk factor for OA due to high-molecular-weight agents, and exposure to cleaning agents is a risk factor for both OA and non-WRA. WEA is important among workers with preexisting asthma and may overlap with irritant-induced asthma, a type of OA. Induced sputum cytology can confirm airway inflammation, but specific inhalation challenge is the reference standard diagnostic test. Inhalation challenges are relatively safe, with the most severe reactions occurring with low-molecular-weight agents. Indirect health care costs account for about 50% of total asthma costs. Workers with poor asthma control (WRA or non-WRA) are less likely to be employed. Income loss is a major contributor to the indirect costs of WRA. Overall, asthma outcomes probably are worse for adult-onset than for childhood-onset asthma but better for OA than adult-onset non-WRA. Important aspects of management of OA are rapid and proper confirmation of the diagnosis and reduction of exposure to sensitizers or irritants at work and home.

The American Thoracic Society has previously published statements on what constitutes an adverse effect on health of air pollution in 1985 and 2000. We set out to update and broaden these past statements that focused primarily on effects on the respiratory system. Since then, many studies have documented effects of air pollution on other organ systems, such as on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems. In addition, many new biomarkers of effects have been developed and applied in air pollution studies.This current report seeks to integrate the latest science into a general framework for interpreting the adversity of the human health effects of air pollution. Rather than trying to provide a catalogue of what is and what is not an adverse effect of air pollution, we propose a set of considerations that can be applied in forming judgments of the adversity of not only currently documented, but also emerging and future effects of air pollution on human health. These considerations are illustrated by the inclusion of examples for different types of health effects of air pollution.

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.