Ohio workshop seeks ideas for National Network for Manufacturing Innovation
Eaton to supply EV charging stations to federal EV Pilot Program

WHO IARC classifies diesel exhaust as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)

After a week-long meeting of an expert working group, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO), classified diesel engine exhaust (DEE) as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence that exposure is associated with an increased risk for lung cancer. The summary of the evaluation will appear in The Lancet Oncology as an online publication ahead of print on 15 June 2012.

The working group also concluded that gasoline exhaust was possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a finding unchanged from a previous evaluation in 1989. In 1988, IARC classified diesel exhaust as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). An Advisory Group which reviews and recommends future priorities for the IARC Monographs Program had recommended diesel exhaust as a high priority for re-evaluation since 1998.

The scientific evidence was compelling and the working group’s conclusion was unanimous: diesel engine exhaust causes lung cancer in humans. Given the additional health impacts from diesel particulates, exposure to this mixture of chemicals should be reduced worldwide.

—Dr. Christopher Portier, Chairman of the IARC working Group

There has been mounting concern about the cancer-causing potential of diesel exhaust, particularly based on findings in epidemiological studies of workers exposed in various settings. This was re-emphasized by the publication in March 2012 of the results of a large US National Cancer Institute/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study of occupational exposure to such emissions in underground miners, which showed an increased risk of death from lung cancer in exposed workers. (Earlier post.)

The scientific evidence was reviewed thoroughly by the working group and overall it was concluded that there was sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of diesel exhaust. The working group found that diesel exhaust is a cause of lung cancer (sufficient evidence) and also noted a positive association (limited evidence) with an increased risk of bladder cancer (Group 1).

Large populations are exposed to diesel exhaust in everyday life, whether through their occupation or through the ambient air. People are exposed not only to motor vehicle exhausts but also to exhausts from other diesel engines, including from other modes of transport (e.g. diesel trains and ships) and from power generators.

Given the working group’s independent assessment of the science, governments and other decision-makers have a valuable evidence-base on which to consider environmental standards for diesel exhaust emissions and to continue to work with the engine and fuel manufacturers towards those goals, the IARC said.

Increasing environmental concerns over the past two decades have resulted in regulatory action in North America, Europe and elsewhere with successively tighter emission standards for both diesel and gasoline engines. There is a strong interplay between standards and technology—standards drive technology and new technology enables more stringent standards.

For diesel engines, this required changes in the fuel such as marked decreases in sulfur content, changes in engine design to burn diesel fuel more efficiently and reductions in emissions through exhaust control technology.

However, while the amount of particulates and chemicals are reduced with these changes, it is not yet clear how the quantitative and qualitative changes may translate into altered health effects; research into this question is needed, IARC said.

In addition, existing fuels and vehicles without these modifications will take many years to be replaced, particularly in less developed countries, where regulatory measures are currently also less stringent. Many parts of the developing world lack regulatory standards, and data on the occurrence and impact of diesel exhaust are limited.

While IARC’s remit is to establish the evidence-base for regulatory decisions at national and international level, today’s conclusion sends a strong signal that public health action is warranted. This emphasis is needed globally, including among the more vulnerable populations in developing countries where new technology and protective measures may otherwise take many years to be adopted.

—Dr. Christopher Wild, Director, IARC

The IARC is part of the World Health Organization. Its mission is to coordinate and conduct research on the causes of human cancer, the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and to develop scientific strategies for cancer control. The Agency is involved in both epidemiological and laboratory research and disseminates scientific information through publications, meetings, courses, and fellowships.

IARC Evaluation groups
Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.
Group 2. This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data.
Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. This category is used most commonly for agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals. Agents that do not fall into any other group are also placed in this category. An evaluation in Group 3 is not a determination of non‐carcinogenicity or overall safety. It often means that further research is needed, especially when exposures are widespread or the cancer data are consistent with differing interpretations.
Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans. This category is used for agents for which there is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in humans and in experimental animals. In some instances, agents for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, consistently and strongly supported by a broad range of mechanistic and other relevant data, may be classified in this group.



I said many times to begin hydrogen fuelcell commercialisation, is it clear now ?

Im sick and tire of the difficult starting of the ice engine where you have to carry a weighty lead acid battery and electric starter that serve .01% of the time. Im tire of the bad smell of diesel and the high level of vibration, the idle that serve nothing, the needed complicated transmission with hiccups on acceleration and bothersome constant use, just think about 18 speeds for tractor-trailer trucks.

I need something out of the neanderthal age. The ice is the bread of war, pollution, politics, poverty, lack of performance, painful maintenance like oil changes.

An hydrogen fuelcell electric car, trucks, airplane or train or ships offer a better ride without pollution, without high fuel cost, with unlimited use and range. Also the hydrogen fuelcell can be operated 24/24 with 100% coefficient of use.


Not only it is carcinogenic for humans but also it's destroying the food's chain, the water, the air and soil. Probably the brain of most car engineers and marketers is paralysed by diesel fumes and that's a reason why we do not have hydrogen fuelcell on the market because there is no active brain pusching for it.


Yes, I see it now, finally after all the talk about cost, infrastructure, storage, production, this last bit about diesel particulate has finally, finally made me see the light. Yes, yes, yes, it has to be fuel cells.

Just kidding.

We have known that carbon particulate matter is carcinogenic for decades, I don't understand why here in 2012 we finally "officially" recognize specifically diesel exhaust has carcinogens. This is like saying that nobody knew cigarettes were bad for you until the government said they were. Are there really people out there who need this kind of enlightenment? No wonder we struggle, the obvious is an epiphany to us.


...news from the department of stating the bleeding obvious.

Cue rises in fuel taxes with this "revalation" which was actually the reason fuel tax on diesel went up several years ago already.

But with diesel having significant fuel economy advantages in a land where fuel taxes are painful the chickens are coming home to roost as a higher and higher proportion of the car fleet is being powered by diesel due to an obsession with CO2 figures.

Is the answer to raise diesel prices? No, better brining down gasoline prices instead and in the meantime developing cleaner technologies.

PS the worst places for air pollution by diesels incidentally seem to in areas where every vehicle apart from buses are banned. So cleaning up buses would be a good start as they make a good job at stinking out our high streets.

Kit P

Notice they do not tell what the risks is or how many workers actually got lung cancer. It is the art of fear mongering. If you provided actual data a reasonable person would just laugh.

Second we are looking at very heavy exposure from operating heavy equipment underground. What are the levels of pollution compared to street level?

It is the dose that makes the poison.


Our local provincial government is suing tobaccos for $60B to cover the medical treatment cost from 1965 to 2030.

When will we sue diesel/gasoline ICE makers, refineries and Oilcos for similar damages?


We should also fine all those ambulances burning precious fossil fuels.. wait a minute!


Yes Herm .....and ALL those 4+ tonnes limousines/SUVs/pick-ups users too

Users pay or polluters pay is still a sacred democratic free enterprise principle or does it apply only to the have not majority?


The $5T to $10T fines could be collected many ways, such as:

1. a $10/barrel fee on all fossil fuel produced and imported or about $190 M/day for the next 20+ years.

2. a $8/barrel fee on all bio-fuel produced locally or imported for the next 30+ years.

3. a $0.02/Kwh produced with coal fired power plants for the next 50+ years.

4. a $0.0125/Kwh produced with NG power plants for the next 50+ years.

5. a progressive ($0.02/gal/month) liquid fuel tax for the next 100+ months.

New fees mentioned in 1 to 4 could be applied progressively over a five year period or so to reduce the shock wave and give people time to change their gas guzzlers for more efficient vehicles.

Those fines could refund about half the national debt. Many people could pay less income taxes.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)