Independent review of industry-generated data.

Thus, despite Katsnelson's interesting model for testing arsenic for carcinogenicity and his findings of a few unusual application-site gastric tumors, we remain unconvinced that the collective experimental findings on arsenic can be taken as proof that arsenic is carcinogenic to animals; by this we mean, on the singular basis of the available animal data (and, for the moment, ignoring the human data), that neither IARC nor the National Toxicology Program (NTP) would judge arsenic as a "probable" or "reasonably anticipated" human carcinogen. The available animal data alone simply do not meet the criteria for either IARC or the NTP to consider the laboratory evidence as being adequate and sufficient to list arsenic as a likely carcinogen to humans. Of course, both organizations do consider arsenic and arsenic compounds as being unequivocally carcinogenic to humans based on epidemiological data.