Cancer risks and Common sense

New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

May 6, 2010

The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream,
so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the
organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies.

The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday,
warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching
consequences for our health.

I’ve read an advance copy of the report, and it’s an extraordinary document.
It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much
more rigorous regulation of chemicals.

Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits,
self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President’s Cancer
Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to
organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in
glass containers rather than plastic.

In particular, the report warns about exposures to chemicals during
pregnancy, when risk of damage seems to be greatest. Noting that 300
contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies,
the study warns that: “to a disturbing extent, babies are born
”˜pre-polluted.’ ”

It’s striking that this report emerges not from the fringe but from the
mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the
President’s Cancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group of three
distinguished experts who review America’s cancer program and report
directly to the president.

One of the seats is now vacant, but the panel members who joined in this
report are Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr., an oncologist and professor of surgery
at Howard University, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, an immunologist at the M.D.
Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Both were originally appointed to the
panel by former President George W. Bush.

“We wanted to let people know that we’re concerned, and that they should be
concerned,” Professor Leffall told me.

The report blames weak laws, lax enforcement and fragmented authority, as
well as the existing regulatory presumption that chemicals are safe unless
strong evidence emerges to the contrary.

“Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United
States have been tested for safety,” the report says. It adds: “Many known
or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated.”

Industry may howl. The food industry has already been fighting legislation
in the Senate backed by Dianne Feinstein of California that would ban
bisphenol-A, commonly found in plastics and better known as BPA, from food
and beverage containers.

Studies of BPA have raised alarm bells for decades, and the evidence is
still complex and open to debate. That’s life: In the real world, regulatory
decisions usually must be made with ambiguous and conflicting data. The
panel’s point is that we should be prudent in such situations, rather than
recklessly approving chemicals of uncertain effect.

The President’s Cancer Panel report will give a boost to Senator Feinstein’s
efforts. It may also help the prospects of the Safe Chemicals Act, backed by
Senator Frank Lautenberg and several colleagues, to improve the safety of
chemicals on the market.

Some 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in
their lives, and they include Democrats and Republicans alike. Protecting
ourselves and our children from toxins should be an effort that both parties
can get behind ”” if enough members of Congress are willing to put the public
interest ahead of corporate interests.

One reason for concern is that some cancers are becoming more common,
particularly in children. We don’t know why that is, but the proliferation
of chemicals in water, foods, air and household products is widely suspected
as a factor. I’m hoping the President’s Cancer Panel report will shine a
stronger spotlight on environmental causes of health problems ”” not only
cancer, but perhaps also diabetes, obesity and autism.

This is not to say that chemicals are evil, and in many cases the evidence
against a particular substance is balanced by other studies that are
exonerating. To help people manage the uncertainty prudently, the report has
a section of recommendations for individuals:

¶Particularly when pregnant and when children are small, choose foods, toys
and garden products with fewer endocrine disruptors or other toxins.
(Information about products is at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com or
www.healthystuff.org.)

¶For those whose jobs may expose them to chemicals, remove shoes when
entering the house and wash work clothes separately from the rest of the
laundry.

¶Filter drinking water.

¶Store water in glass or stainless steel containers, or in plastics that
don’t contain BPA or phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics).
Microwave food in ceramic or glass containers.

¶Give preference to food grown without pesticides, chemical fertilizers and
growth hormones. Avoid meats that are cooked well-done.

¶Check radon levels in your home. Radon is a natural source of radiation
linked to cancer.

Share This Post

New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF May 6, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/opinion/06kristof.html The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies. The cancer panel is…
&source=WeeksMD">