Reacción a "Talc is classified as "probably carcinogenic to humans" by the IARC"

The two decisions taken by IARC on acrylonitrile and talc are based on careful consideration of the evidence, and both are therefore evidence-based decisions that should inform policy and controls within workplaces. Consumers and workers should have access to the IARC information to help their own decision-making on what to use where choices are available.   

The decisions mean we need good preventive and precautionary policy-making to remove exposures to talc, if at all possible, but it may well be harder to achieve than with ACN.   

For acrylonitrile, it is clear there are either alternative materials available for many of its current uses, or the need for its use is not critical in the first place. This is the case with regard to its use in various fibres. The application of  a toxic use reduction strategy, avoiding the risk of regrettable substitutes, should provide less hazardous alternatives to ACN. The use in plastics is now even more questionable when globally and within Europe, policies advocate major cuts in plastics use linked to wider environmental and health risks. Suggestions that there are no alternatives to ACN do not stand up to scrutiny in many cases. Worker protection should be improved with even tougher ACN exposure standards and the risks to smokers from ACN should be highlighted again.