International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

International agency

World Health Organization specialized cancer agency · International

Visit the source site · Audited 2026-10-14

Who pays for it

IARC's audited 2025 statements list €24.867 million in assessed contributions and €25.087 million in voluntary contributions, including research grants, within €55.046 million total revenue.

Status: Supporting

IARC publishes its funding and conflict process, but research grants and state contributions create financial and political exposure. Its Monographs classify cancer hazards, not risk at a particular exposure, so the findings are paired with a second source and exposure-specific evidence.

How SafeMomma uses it

We use IARC for cancer-hazard identification, not as an estimate of risk at a particular consumer exposure, and compare the finding with exposure-specific evidence from a different source.

The audit

Who controls it: IARC Monographs are developed by expert Working Groups selected for relevant expertise and absence of conflicts. Members serve as individual scientists, while the IARC Secretariat coordinates and clarifies the process.
Money: In 2025, assessed contributions were €24.867 million and voluntary contributions, including research grants, were €25.087 million, against €55.046 million total revenue. IARC says 91% of its activities were funded by those sources; voluntary donors include public bodies, international organizations, NGOs, foundations, and charities.
Conflict rules: Participants disclose financial interests, employment and consulting, research support, and relevant non-financial interests before invitation and update declarations at meetings. IARC publishes names, affiliations, and interest summaries; invited specialists with conflicts may share knowledge but do not draft or join evaluations.
Method: The 2019 Preamble describes review of human, animal, and mechanistic evidence, open discussion, peer review, and consensus classifications. IARC classifies whether an agent can cause cancer; it does not estimate risk at a given exposure, and deliberative drafts and meeting records are not published.
Dates on its pages: Monographs are individually dated, and the 2019 Preamble was the methods document reviewed; no portfolio-wide median age or systematic recency analysis was performed.
Political exposure: Science reported on 13 March 2026 that NIH was winding down IARC ties after the U.S. withdrawal from WHO took effect in January 2025, while IARC had not received official U.S. notice of withdrawal from IARC. IARC's 9 July 2026 contribution status still listed the U.S. as a participating state, with €4,500,058 total unpaid; this shows funding and collaboration exposure, not formal IARC withdrawal or a scientific-content change.
Money exposure: Voluntary grants can be project-designated, and private-sector donors are subject to due diligence; IARC says it excludes tobacco- and arms-linked contributions. Science reported that a $1 million NCI/NIEHS grant funded about 40% of the 2025 Monographs-program budget and that NIH grants for six projects totaled about $3.9 million; these are reported dependencies, not proof that donors controlled conclusions.
Track record: A 2017 Reuters investigation reported ten significant changes between draft and final glyphosate animal-study text, including deleted or revised negative findings; IARC said the changes came from Working Group deliberations and consensus. The reviewed record did not establish who made the edits or why. IARC's Group 2B aspartame hazard classification and JECFA's separate daily intake limit of 0 to 40 mg/kg body weight address different questions, not conflicting answers to one question.

Where this comes from

Incentive exposure describes pressure from money or politics, not whether the source is right. Funding alone does not show influence.

← Back to Our sources