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:

In a study released Tuesday by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, researchers report that they have found a continuing “possible link” between formaldehyde exposure and death from cancers of the blood and lymphatic system among workers exposed to the chemical.

The report is part of an ongoing study of industrial workers in plants making formaldehyde products.

“Since the 1980s, NCI has studied cancer deaths among a group of 25,619 workers, predominately white males, who were employed before 1966 in 10 industrial plants that produced formaldehyde and formaldehyde resin and that used the chemical to produce molded-plastic products, decorative laminates, photographic film, or plywood,” according to the NCI release.

These workers show a higher susceptibility to certain cancers, especially among workers with high exposure to the chemical, researchers say.

“Workers with the highest peak exposures had a 37 percent increased risk of death compared to those with the lowest level of peak exposures. This represents an excess risk of death from several specific cancers, including Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and myeloid leukemia – the type most often associated with chemical exposure,” the NCI release noted.

Researchers called the findings “not definitive” but “consistent” with previous work showing a relationship between formaldehyde and cancers of the blood and lymphatic system.

Analysis of the same group of workers has shown that the risk of death from myeloid leukemia, for instance, was 78 percent higher among industrial workers with the highest peak exposures compared to those with the lowest peak exposures (though the risk has been declining over time, possibly due to “chance” or due to the risk of developing the cancer peaking relatively soon after exposure).

The Formaldehyde Council disputed the study, noting that the researchers’ concession that the cancer link was not “definitive.” The industry group asserted that  “the rate of leukemia in the study group is no different than that in the U.S. population” and called for more research into the health effects of formaldehyde by the National Academy of Sciences.

Formaldehyde is found in pressed wood products used in construction, cabinetry, insulation, disinfectants and in some beauty products, where it turns up as a preservative.

It remains unclear whether routine household exposure to the chemical would raise anyone’s risk of contracting cancer. But advocacy groups concerned about the build-up of many chemicals in the body advise consumers to be aware of formaldehyde in products and to wear gloves when using disinfectants or cleaners containing the product.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics recently found a small amount of formaldehyde in baby products, which has triggered a bill in Congress called the Safe Baby Products Act that would ban the chemical in such consumer items.