The record
Korchevskiy & Wylie, 'The IARC re-classification of talc carcinogenicity: a move in the wrong direction?' (Crit Rev Toxicol 2025, PMID 41307960), contests the 2024 IARC upgrade of talc to Group 2A, arguing the animal evidence cannot exceed 'limited' and the human evidence 'inadequate.'
Claim scope
That the scientific dispute over the 2A upgrade is live in the peer-reviewed literature, with a named critique arguing the reclassification rested on methodological changes rather than new data.
What this source does not establish
Does NOT establish that IARC is wrong. These are critical commentaries and letters, not cohort studies; none supplies a new quantitative risk measure. Several are Critical Reviews in Toxicology papers of the kind commonly authored by consultants engaged in litigation — funding and competing-interest statements were not verified and must be flagged before publication.
Limitations
Represent both directions. On the other side of the same dispute: PMID 38995135 (Epidemiol Prev 2024) systematically reviewed the post-2006 epidemiology of asbestos-free talc. Do NOT present the critics as the consensus, and do NOT suppress them. Competing interests unverified — flag before publication.
Source
Pmid — 41307960