**2.8 The AFSSET report (2010)**

*Agence française de sécurité sanitaire de l'environnement et du travail (Afsset), Comité d'Experts Spécialisés liés à l'évaluation des risques liés aux agents physiques, aux nouvelles technologies et aux grands aménagements, Octobre 2009. Groupe de Travail Radiofréquences, mise à jour de l'expertise relative aux radiofréquences (Saisine n°2007/007) (2009).*  www.afsset.fr/index\_2010.php

The AFSSET became since 2010 the "French agency for Food, Environment and Occupational Health and Safety (now ANSES)". It was asked by the French government to provide an overview and evaluation of the scientific knowledge on biological effects from mobile phone frequencies. The request was especially focussed on alleged effects on the blood brain barrier and epidemiological investigations on brain cancer in relation with mobile phone and other wireless applications of radiofrequency radiation. A working group was constituted according to strict criteria following a call for experts. Members were experts in the different relevant area of the subject, including medical doctors, biologists, biophysicists, epidemiologists, engineers (dosimetry) and human and social sciences (1 chairman and 12 members). The working group produced a report that was submitted to another expert committee (CES) of 26 members comprising 4 members of the AFSSET working group. There were also approximately 30 external auditors.

The report was written following several (13) meetings that were held between September 2008 and October 2009 comprising 19 auditions. A large database of publications was used essentially including peer reviewed (English) papers. Other reports (SCENIHR, Bioinitiative, etc.) were also consulted in order to identify publications that might have been overlooked.

It may be interesting to know that many of the members were not the usual players involved in research on non ionizing radiation bio effects and no members of other expert groups on the subject. They all possessed of course the necessary expertise to fulfil their tasks.

According to the AFFSET report there are no indications for short or long term adverse health effects as a result of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Epidemiological investigations were reassuring but nothing can be said about long term effects that were not yet (sufficiently) investigated. Upon receipt of the report from the working group AFFSET concluded a little bit more mitigated. Due to the presence of some studies showing effects and hence remaining uncertainties further research is encouraged.

## **2.9 IARC (2011)**

*IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 102: Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part II: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields [includes mobile telephones, microwaves, and radar] – in press (2011)*  www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208\_E.pdf

In May 2011, 30 scientists from 14 countries met at the international Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The results of this meeting will be published in the IARC Monographs (nr. 102; *in press*). This monograph will contain information on (1) exposure data, (2) studies of cancer in humans, (3) studies of cancer in experimental animals, (4) mechanistic and other relevant data, together with a summary and final evaluation and rationale. A summary report is already

*Agence française de sécurité sanitaire de l'environnement et du travail (Afsset), Comité d'Experts Spécialisés liés à l'évaluation des risques liés aux agents physiques, aux nouvelles technologies et aux grands aménagements, Octobre 2009. Groupe de Travail Radiofréquences, mise à jour de l'expertise* 

The AFSSET became since 2010 the "French agency for Food, Environment and Occupational Health and Safety (now ANSES)". It was asked by the French government to provide an overview and evaluation of the scientific knowledge on biological effects from mobile phone frequencies. The request was especially focussed on alleged effects on the blood brain barrier and epidemiological investigations on brain cancer in relation with mobile phone and other wireless applications of radiofrequency radiation. A working group was constituted according to strict criteria following a call for experts. Members were experts in the different relevant area of the subject, including medical doctors, biologists, biophysicists, epidemiologists, engineers (dosimetry) and human and social sciences (1 chairman and 12 members). The working group produced a report that was submitted to another expert committee (CES) of 26 members comprising 4 members of the AFSSET

The report was written following several (13) meetings that were held between September 2008 and October 2009 comprising 19 auditions. A large database of publications was used essentially including peer reviewed (English) papers. Other reports (SCENIHR, Bioinitiative, etc.) were also consulted in order to identify publications that might have been overlooked.

It may be interesting to know that many of the members were not the usual players involved in research on non ionizing radiation bio effects and no members of other expert groups on the

According to the AFFSET report there are no indications for short or long term adverse health effects as a result of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Epidemiological investigations were reassuring but nothing can be said about long term effects that were not yet (sufficiently) investigated. Upon receipt of the report from the working group AFFSET concluded a little bit more mitigated. Due to the presence of some studies showing effects

*IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 102: Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part II: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields [includes mobile telephones, microwaves,* 

In May 2011, 30 scientists from 14 countries met at the international Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, to assess the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The results of this meeting will be published in the IARC Monographs (nr. 102; *in press*). This monograph will contain information on (1) exposure data, (2) studies of cancer in humans, (3) studies of cancer in experimental animals, (4) mechanistic and other relevant data, together with a summary and final evaluation and rationale. A summary report is already

subject. They all possessed of course the necessary expertise to fulfil their tasks.

and hence remaining uncertainties further research is encouraged.

www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208\_E.pdf

**2.8 The AFSSET report (2010)** 

www.afsset.fr/index\_2010.php

**2.9 IARC (2011)** 

*and radar] – in press (2011)* 

*relative aux radiofréquences (Saisine n°2007/007) (2009).* 

working group. There were also approximately 30 external auditors.

published (Baan et al., 2011). As for all other evaluations performed by IARC the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields resulted from discussions that were held in different working groups (human cancer studies, animal cancer studies and other relevant topics + supporting group related to dosimetry) and in plenary sessions. Working group members were essentially chosen by IARC staff members based on their scientific merits as judged by their peer reviewed publications.

The general principles and procedures as well as the scientific review and evaluation process is well described in the IARC preamble document which can be found on the IARC website (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/CurrentPreamble.pdf). All participants have carefully filled in a conflict of interest document well in advance of the meeting as well as at the start of the meeting. Discussions were based on scientific reviews that were written before the meeting by some of the experts on subjects that belong to their field of expertise.

The evaluation of the carcinogenic risks to humans of radiofrequency fields results in a classification in one out of 5 categories (group 1, 2A, 2B, 3 or 4) as indicated in table 1. The decision is based on the human evidence and evidence in experimental animals where the designation "sufficient" evidence, "limited" evidence, "inadequate" evidence or "evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity" is given by voting. This results in an overall classification of the carcinogenic risk as indicated in figure 1. The overall evaluation can be changed (e.g., from group 2B to 2A, or 2B to 3) according to the arguments (evaluations) provided by the working group on mechanistic and other relevant data.


Table 1. Agents Classified by the *IARC Monographs*, Volumes 1–102 (http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php)


Mechanistic data can be pivotable when the human data are not conclusive

Fig. 1. IARC evaluation based on evidence from human and animal data (figure provided by IARC).

According to IARC useful information was available regarding associations between the use of wireless phones and glioma, and to a lesser extent acoustic neuroma. The international Interphone study and studies from a Swedish research group (dr. Hardell) were found of most importance in the evaluation process. Both studies were found to be susceptible to bias – due to recall errors and selection for participation- but the working group nevertheless concluded that the findings of an increased risk at the highest exposed groups could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone. A causal interpretation between exposure to mobile phone radiation and glioma and acoustic neuroma was therefore considered possible. The working group therefore decided that there is limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation. The working group also concluded that there is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of RF-radiations. Although there was evidence of an effect of RF-radiation on some of the 'other relevant endpoints' the working group reached the overall conclusion that these results provided only weak mechanistic evidence relevant to RF-induced cancer in humans. Therefore, the conclusion is that radiofrequency fields should be classified in group 2B (possible carcinogenic; see Figure 1).

Radiofrequency radiation is thus classified in the same group (2B) than extreme low frequency magnetic fields, coffee and styrene. This raises some questions. Are their effects really comparable? Maybe the classification is not discriminative enough to allow differentiation in the overall EMF frequency range nor does it allow to sufficiently [account] for different qualities of underlying data. According to Leitgeb (2011a,b) other classification systems, e.g., the system developed in 2001 by the German Commission on Radiation Protection (SSK), allows categorization of evidence in other and more classes. Using this system Leitgeb assigned microwave radiation to class E0: "Lack of/or insufficient evidence for causality". This illustrates that a classification in the IARC group 2B should not be interpreted by the public as proof of carcinogenicity at the same level as group 2A and 1. This is of course not correct but very often done.

### **2.10 French national academy of medicine (2009)**

The academy stated that the precautionary principle may not be 'misused' to impose unscientific opinions. Scientific data are needed, not a subjective interpretation of the precautionary principle. According to the Academy *" No mechanism is known through which electromagnetic fields in the range of energies and frequencies used for mobile communication could have a negative effect on health."*

#### **2.11 French academy of medicine, academy of sciences en academy of technologies (2009)**

The National Academy of Medicine, the Academy of Science and the Academy of Technologies deplore the conclusions drawn by AFSSET from their experts' report. The three Academies congratulate the experts for their work but roundly criticize the Agency's recommendations. It does not understand why the presentation of the report does not insist on the reassuring aspects that are much more important than the few studies reporting effects. The latter are not to be considered credible alert signals. The academies also do not agree with the AFSSET recommendation to reduce exposure to cellular antennas that they consider scientifically not justified.
