Can EMF Radiation Cause Cancer? What the WHO and IARC Say in 2025

The question of whether EMF radiation can cause cancer remains one of the most debated and concerning topics in environmental health. As we move through 2025, understanding the official positions of the World Health Organization (WHO) and its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is crucial for separating scientific facts from speculation about EMF and cancer risks.

This comprehensive review examines the latest WHO EMF report updates, analyzes whether EMF should be considered EMF carcinogenic, and helps you understand the real EMF health risks based on the most current international research.

Understanding the IARC Classification System

To understand the WHO’s position, we must first understand how IARC categorizes potential carcinogens:

Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans (119 agents)
Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans (89 agents)
Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans (322 agents)
Group 3: Not classifiable as to carcinogenicity (500 agents)
Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans (1 agent)

This classification system helps contextualize where EMF falls relative to other known and potential carcinogens.

Current Official Positions in 2025

IARC Classification: Radiofrequency EMF (2011-2025)

Status: Group 2B – Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans (unchanged since 2011)

What This Means:

RF-EMF is in the same category as coffee, pickled vegetables, and talc-based body powder
There is “limited evidence” of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence in animals
The association was primarily based on studies linking mobile phone use to glioma and acoustic neuroma

2025 Update: IARC has been conducting a comprehensive re-evaluation, with results expected in late 2025 or early 2026. Preliminary indications suggest the classification may remain Group 2B, though some experts advocate for upgrading to Group 2A.

Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) EMF Classification

Status: Group 2B – Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans (since 2002)

What This Means:

ELF-EMF from power lines and electrical devices is considered in the same category as RF-EMF
Based primarily on childhood leukemia studies showing consistent associations

Key Studies Influencing the WHO/IARC Position

The INTERPHONE Study (2010)

Largest international case-control study on mobile phones and brain tumors
Found no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma
Suggested possible increased risk in heaviest users (top 10% of cumulative call time)
Limitations: Possible recall bias and changing technology patterns

CERENAT Study (2014)

French case-control study
Found increased risk of glioma and temporal tumors with heavy mobile phone use
Particularly noted risks for occupational users and long-term users

ANFR Research (2023-2024)

Recent French national research program
Found “suggestive but not conclusive” evidence for certain brain tumors
Noted the challenge of studying effects given ubiquitous exposure in control groups

NTP and Ramazzini Studies

Both found increased heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to high RF-EMF levels
Provided important animal evidence supporting biological plausibility
Used exposure levels and durations far exceeding typical human exposure

What “Limited Evidence” Actually Means

The “limited evidence” classification is often misunderstood. In IARC terminology, this means:

A positive association has been observed between exposure and cancer
A causal interpretation is considered credible
Chance, bias, or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence
More research is needed to reach definitive conclusions

This is different from “inadequate evidence” (Group 3) or “evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity” (Group 4).

The WHO’s Precautionary Approach

While maintaining the Group 2B classification, the WHO recommends:

Official Recommendations:

Further research into long-term, heavy mobile phone use
Practical measures to reduce exposure, particularly in children
Continued monitoring of the evolving science
Public information about simple reduction strategies

The WHO EMF Project (2025 Update):

Continues to coordinate international research
Maintains that current evidence doesn’t warrant changing safety guidelines
Acknowledges gaps in knowledge about long-term and 5G effects
Supports the precautionary principle, especially for children

Weighing the Evidence: Different Perspectives

The Cautious Viewpoint:

Multiple studies show increased brain tumor risks in heavy, long-term users
Animal studies demonstrate biological plausibility
Latency periods for cancer development may mean we’re seeing only early effects
The ubiquity of exposure makes detecting small increases in risk difficult

The Skeptical Viewpoint:

Population-level brain cancer rates haven’t shown the dramatic increases predicted if EMF were a strong carcinogen
Many studies show no association or inconsistent results
Mechanisms for how low-level EMF could cause cancer remain unclear
Confounding factors and recall bias may explain positive findings

Specific Cancer Types and EMF Associations

Strongest Evidence:

Glioma: Most consistent associations in heavy mobile phone users
Acoustic Neuroma: Some evidence from long-term studies
Childhood Leukemia: Associated with high ELF-EMF exposure near power lines

Weaker or Inconsistent Evidence:

Breast cancer
Other childhood cancers
Most solid tumors

Emerging Research Areas:

Thyroid cancer and mobile phone use patterns
Salivary gland tumors
Effects of new modulation technologies

Practical Implications for Daily Life

Given the current evidence, here are reasonable precautions:

For General Users:

Use speakerphone or wired headsets to keep phones away from your head
Text instead of call when possible
Limit children’s mobile phone use due to longer potential exposure periods
Choose landlines for longer conversations

For Heavy Users:

Be particularly mindful of cumulative exposure
Take regular breaks from mobile devices
Consider EMF-reducing cases (while understanding their limitations)
Monitor for any unusual symptoms

Home and Work Environment:

Maintain distance from Wi-Fi routers and electrical panels
Use wired connections when feasible
Consider bedroom EMF reduction since this is where you spend prolonged periods

What Might Change the Classification?

Several factors could influence future IARC evaluations:

Likely to Strengthen Classification (to 2A):

Consistent findings from ongoing long-term cohort studies
Stronger mechanistic evidence demonstrating how EMF could cause cancer
Clear dose-response relationships in human studies
Increasing brain tumor rates in specific user groups

Likely to Weaken Classification (to 3):

Consistently negative findings from new large studies
Better understanding and control of confounding factors
Stable or decreasing brain tumor rates despite increased mobile phone use
Lack of replication in animal studies

The Bottom Line for 2025

Based on the current WHO and IARC positions:

EMF remains “possibly carcinogenic” – this is a cautious, science-based position
The evidence is insufficient to prove EMF causes cancer in humans
The evidence is sufficient to warrant continued research and reasonable precautions
The classification may evolve as new research emerges
Individual risk appears small compared to established carcinogens like tobacco and asbestos

Staying Informed as Science Evolves

The most important action you can take is to stay informed about developing research while taking reasonable precautions. The science of EMF and health is rapidly evolving, and positions may change as new evidence emerges.

Remember: The Group 2B classification represents a scientific consensus that there’s enough evidence to warrant concern and further research, but not enough to declare EMF a definite cancer cause.

References & Citations

[1] International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2013). *Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.* IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 102.

[2] World Health Organization. (2024). Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Mobile Phones. WHO Fact Sheet Updated 2024.

[3] IARC Working Group. (2024). Advisory Report on Prioritization of Agents for Re-evaluation. IARC Internal Report 2024-01.

[4] National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2018). *Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio Frequency Radiation at 900 MHz.* NTP Technical Report 595.