Commentary: IARC Monographs Program and public health under siege by corporate interests

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluates causes of cancer with help from independent international experts in an open and transparent manner. Countries, research and regulatory agencies, and other organizations adopt IARC evaluations for communication of human cancer hazards, and for strategies to prevent cancer. Scientists worldwide endorse IARC cancer evaluations and process. Those with economic interests, however, challenge IARC's cancer evaluations, most recently for glyphosate and red and processed meats, and are conducting a campaign including intervention from US Congressional Representatives to discredit IARC's review process and to undermine financial support—a campaign intimidating to IARC and Working Group members. Challenges to scientific interpretations serve to advance science and should be resolved by scientific experts who do not have conflicts of interest. Such interference does not bode well for the free flow of scientific information that informs and protects the public from risks of cancer.     

Angiolipoma of the tongue: report of a case

Angiolipoma is a rare variety of lipoma in the maxillofacial region. Only eight cases have been documented so far. A case in which an angiolipoma occurred within the tongue of a 49-year-old man is described here. The difference from earlier cases occurring in the tongue is noted. Close follow-up has, as yet, revealed no recurrence.     

AIDS and Infection Control: Amsterdam Dentists Surveyed

In March 1988 all Amsterdam dentists (N = 470) were sent a questionnaire to assess the extent of compliance with guidelines from the Health Council to prevent HIV transmission in dental practice. Response rate was 62 percent. Gloves, masks, and other protective garments were widely used. Other infection control procedures, like sterilizing instruments, were often not followed in ways recommended by the Health Council. To date, 60 percent of the respondents did not spend more than US$2,500 for protective garments or special equipment. Planned expenditure is substantially higher. One-quarter of the respondents were certain to have one or more HIV-seropositive patients, and 35 percent believed they did. When taking the medical history, almost one-third of the dentists ask questions to assess whether a patient is possibly HIV seropositive. Forty percent of the dentists hold the opinion that it is necessary for a dentist to know whether a patient is HIV seropositive. This is against Health Council views. Thirty percent of the respondents are definitely fearful of AIDS infection and want additional information or training on this topic.