The Trump administration on Monday, 8 June declared that US health and safety regulations must be grounded in assessments conducted by American scientific institutions, not conclusions drawn by international bodies. In a joint statement, the US Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) directly criticised the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), accusing it of issuing hazard classifications that can mislead the public and distort policy debates.

Key Developments

The joint statement declared that while international organisations can contribute to scientific discussions, their findings 'should not automatically be treated as definitive in the United States.' The administration raised specific concerns about the 'consistency, transparency, and real-world applicability' of certain IARC cancer hazard assessments, arguing they blur the critical distinction between a theoretical hazard and an actual risk under real-world exposure conditions.

IARC is a specialised cancer research agency affiliated with the World Health Organisation (WHO) and is widely cited in regulatory and legal contexts globally.

What the Administration Said

The statement warned that broad classifications based on limited or theoretical risks 'can create unnecessary public confusion, undermine confidence in everyday products and industries, and lead to policy outcomes that are disconnected from actual exposure and modern scientific standards.'

The administration further accused IARC of advancing what it described as 'politicised narratives' that are frequently cited in US domestic legal proceedings and regulatory debates. 'IARC's findings and monographs often blur the line between hazard and true risk, while diminishing independently verified findings of other research institutions,' the statement said.

As a pointed example, the statement took issue with IARC classifications that placed red meat and tobacco products in comparable risk categories. 'Equating red meat to tobacco products oversimplifies complex scientific discourse and does little to inform sound public health policy,' it said.

America First Framing

The administration anchored the statement in President Donald Trump's broader 'America First' agenda, arguing that decisions affecting US workers, families, farmers, and businesses must be guided by transparent, evidence-based processes rooted in American institutional accountability. 'American regulatory decisions should be made by American institutions accountable to the American people,' the statement concluded.

This position represents a significant rhetorical break from the multilateral scientific consensus model that has underpinned global health regulation for decades. It also signals a potential shift in how US courts and federal agencies may weigh IARC findings in future litigation and rulemaking.

Broader Context and Implications

IARC's classifications have historically carried substantial weight in US product-liability lawsuits — most notably in cases involving glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller, which IARC classified as a probable carcinogen in 2015. Critics of IARC have long argued that its hazard-identification methodology does not adequately account for real-world dosage and exposure levels. The administration's statement appears to formalise that critique as official US policy.

The move is likely to be welcomed by agricultural, chemical, and food industry groups, while drawing sharp pushback from public health advocates who argue that IARC's independent, peer-reviewed process is precisely what makes its findings credible. How US regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) formally respond to this guidance will be closely watched in the months ahead.