Issues and controversies surrounding qualitative strategies for identifying and forecasting cancer causing agents in the human environment.

Certain chemicals, mixtures of chemicals, exposure circumstances, life-styles and personal or cultural habits, occupations, viruses, living conditions, and physical agents have been causally associated with cancers in humans. Most however are not considered potentially carcinogenic, and the proportion of 'agents' eventually identified to cause cancer is projected to be relatively low. Current methods to identify carcinogenic potential of chemicals rely largely on short-term in vitro and in vivo tests, mid- & long-term in vivo assays, molecular mechanisms, epidemiological investigations, and structural-activity-effect-relationships. Thus, the scientific and public health communities must continue to utilize available means and concomitantly strive to develop newer methods and tools to more easily, quickly, cheaply, and reliably identify carcinogens in the human milieu. Since adequate human studies are typically absent, the most useful method for identifying potential human carcinogens continues to be long-term carcinogenesis experiments. Agents identified as causing cancers in humans have been shown to cause cancer in animals, and this knowledge, together with similarities in mechanisms of carcinogenesis across species, led to the scientific logic and public health strategy that chemicals shown clearly to be carcinogenic in animals should be considered as being likely and anticipated to present cancer risks to humans. The quest of hazard identification efforts is cancer prevention, largely by reducing or eliminating exposures to chemicals that cause cancer and other diseases.