Calling the fight against cancer “one of the most notorious public health failures of the 20th century” four leading cancer and environmental experts called on Congress and the Obama Administration this week to acknowledge the role environmental carcinogens play in triggering cancer and dedicate more money to cancer prevention.

In a letter to Congressional leaders, the national medical and scientific experts said they were concerned that prevention has received little attention in the Obama Cancer Plan. They noted that health care costs could not be brought under control without a better plan to fight the disease that claims 1,500 American lives daily and costs $89 billion a year to diagnose and treat. (Costs rise to $219 billion annually, when lost productivity and premature death costs are factored in).

“The connection between our losing the cancer war and the need to control costs through prevention is clear. Cancer is not only one of the most costly and sometimes deadly diseases in America, it is also one of the most preventable,” they wrote.

As Congress ramps up this week to craft what could be a massive health care reform package, the advocates asked that elected leaders make revisions to the National Cancer Act (of 1971) that would reduce Americans’ exposure to carcinogens by half over the next decade.

They also want a complete public registry of carcinogens.

For too long, they say, the National Cancer Institute has blamed the vast majority of cancer on human behaviors, such as lack of exercise, poor diet and sun exposure – ignoring the role of environmental carcinogens.

But environmental and occupational exposures to carcinogens are the primary cause of non-smoking related cancers, say the petitioning experts, led by Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, MD Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition in Chicago. They cited “preventable exposures to carcinogens in the workplace and environment” such as nitrites in processed meats, formaldehyde, chlorinated organic pesticides, organic solvents and other substances.

The letter listed many more examples of how environmental factors, beyond tobacco use, that are believed to cause cancer.

“To be sure, smoking remains the best-known and single largest cause of cancer, particularly lung cancer. While incidence rates of lung cancer in men have declined by 20% over the past three decades, rates in women increased by 111%. But more importantly, non-smoking cancers — due to known chemical and physical carcinogens — have increased substantially since 1975. Some of the more startling realities in the failure to prevent cancer are illustrated by their soaring rates of increase. These include:

Quick get me to a de-tox chamber!

I hate to pile on, but underneath all the bad news about our sickly economy and fragile atmosphere is an oil slick of foreboding tidings about our ailing everyday environment.

Take last week’s study in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that people living in the smoggiest cities are more likely to die from respiratory diseases. The study of nearly half a million adults found that ground-level ozone has a longer-term impact than previously recognized, resulting in “a significant increase in the risk of death from respiratory causes”. That makes so much sense. We’re warned to stay in on “alert” days when ozone levels are high; especially the young, the old and people with asthma. It stands to reason that ozone could be cumulatively damaging.

Or consider this week’s release of a European study linking youngsters using cell phones to a five-fold elevated risk of malignant brain tumors. 

Or the new Kaiser Permanente/Silent Spring analysis showing an elevated breast cancer risk associated with certain pharmaceuticals, including an anti-fungal, a diuretic and an antibiotic?

You could quickly drown in this kind of news. But we can also be encouraged that many non-profits, government organizations and researchers are finally focusing on the connections between environmental pollution and disease, and corralling the information so we can begin to extricate ourselves.

The Silent Spring Institute and Susan G. Komen For the Cure recently surveyed the research and distilled 216 chemicals that were found to cause breast tumors in animal studies. The free database they created with this information shows that 73 of the chemicals are present in consumer products or contaminants in food and 35 are air pollutants. That’s a lot of chemicals, and it’s unclear which are the worst and there are still genetic proclivities and other factors involved in this devastatingly common disease, but these are at least visible targets.

Last week the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of groups, shone a light on harmful chemicals in baby products, for which they blame weak U.S. labeling requirements.

They found 1,4 dioxane and formaldehyde in a variety of kiddie bath products such as Johnson’s Baby Shampoo and Sesame Street Bubble Bath.

Both chemicals are listed as probable carcinogens by the EPA; 1,4 dioxane is banned from personal care products at any level, even trace amounts, in Europe. Formaldehyde is banned from them in Sweden and Japan. (See more on the full report on the Environmental Working Group website.)

Some other findings from the study:

• American Girl shower products were found to contain the highest levels of 1,4-dioxane found in the tests.

• Two samples of Baby Magic Baby Lotion contained levels of formaldehyde that would trigger warning label requirements in Europe.

The report noted that the 1,4 dioxane turns up, ironically, as a byproduct of processes to make products more gentle, and its use is waning.

Beauty product manufacturers were not happy to even see the issue in the news again, saying that these trace amounts of chemicals are not cause for concern, and that their products meet current guidelines set by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States.

Naterra International Inc., which owns Baby Magic products, called the report “patently false and a shameful and cynical attempt by an activist group to incite and prey upon parental worries and concerns in order to push a political, legislative and legal agenda.”

Naterra also noted that: “When present, these chemicals would likely be found at very low levels precisely because companies have gone to great lengths in the formulation and manufacturing processes to ensure that the products are safe and gentle
for children and also protected from harmful bacterial growth.”

Of course, we don’t know the precise effect of these chemical exposures, and clearly humans can withstand an onslaught, given the glues, VOCs and flame retardants wafting around our own homes, not to mention the pesticides on our lawns and the air pollution in our cities.

That’s been part of the problem, actually. There are so many chemical agents acting in our lives that researchers often can’t nail down the links or the danger thresholds, let alone the precise causality between a problem and its trigger. Which can cause us to worry about what we should be worried about. A vexing position, at best.

The EWG, a co-founder of the Campaign for Safer Cosmetics, suggests we weigh this issues by looking at our “body burden” of chemicals, or our total load; so we can reduce our exposure, as best as we can. One person who’s trying to break through with that message is Ken Cook, co-founder of EWG. He’s on a mission to educate us about the everyday poisons that should be on our watch list. The San Francisco Chronicle recently ran an excellent article on Cook’s road show, noting that some are likening him to Al Gore, for sounding the alarm in this field.

We hope to bring you more on that soon, too.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The news on bisphenol A or BPA just doesn’t get better. The chemical, used to make plastic baby bottles and food can liners, could deliver a double-whammy to women, paving the way for breast cancer, and then boomeranging back to interfere with the treatment for cancer recovery.

A study by University of Cincinnati scientists released this week found that BPA exposure may reduce the effectiveness of chemotherapy treatments for breast cancer patients.

Researchers found that this man-made chemical – already implicated as a potential trigger in breast cancer because it is structurally similar to the estrogenic DES – induced a group of proteins in the body to protect breast cancer cells from the chemotherapy.

Resistance to chemotherapy is already a “major problem for cancer patients, especially those with advanced metastatic disease,” said UC’s Nira Ben-Jonathan, a professor of cell biology who’s been studying BPA for more than a decade.

Dr. Ben-Jonathan’s team discovered the BPA-chemotherapy problem by exposing human breast cancer cells to low levels of BPA, similar to those found in the blood of humans. The BPA mimicked estrogen, inducing the protein cells to protect the cancer cells.

Estrogen has been known to block chemotherapy treatment, but this new finding could help explain why some post-menopausal women, with lower levels of estrogen, suffer from chemotherapy resistance, Dr. Ben Jonathan said. Her study was underwritten by the U.S, Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and is discussed in Science Daily.

BPA has been suspected of playing a role in a variety of health issues, acting as a hormone disruptor in children and adults and possibly inducing neurological changes in kids. Studies with rats and mice have shown changes in tissue that some believe presage breast or prostate cancer development.

Last month, an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, added another concern. It found that a group of adults with the highest levels of BPA detected in their urine were nearly three times as likely to develop heart disease and had twice the risk of diabetes compared with those who had the lowest levels of BPA.

In recent months, many medical and environmental science groups, notably the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, have been cautioning parents of infants to forego baby bottles made of polycarbonate plastic, and manufacturers began offering alternatives in glass or other types of plastic (look for the BPA-free label).

The problem with food cans, in which BPA is used within the epoxy liners to keep food from chemically eroding the metal casing, has been less publicized and there’s been little public response from manufacturers.

The EWG advises lowering exposure to BPA by simply avoiding products containing the chemical. Among those:

• Hard, clear plastic polycarbonate baby bottles or sport water bottles. They can sometimes be identified by their plastic notation on the bottom of the bottle showing they’re made with #7 plastic.

• Food sold in cans, and watching particularly acidic foods, like tomatoes, which may cause leaching from the BPA liner. Look for food in glass jars, or seek refuge in the produce section.

• Soda in cans (The levels of BPA may be lower here, but the volume of consumption could be higher.)

• Pre-mixed liquid baby formula sold in cans

The U.S. Federal Drug Administration has green lighted the current use of BPA in food cans, for instance, saying that the amount of the chemical ingested by humans is very small. But critics say the agency has relied on plastics industry-backed studies.

As cause for concern, scientists point to a 2004 Centers for Disease Control study showing that 95 percent of people tested had traces of BPA in their urine.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media