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:

Corn-based ethanol, once a star on the alternative energy scene, has fallen from favor in the past year, battered by reports that raising corn for fuel raids the world’s pantry and that corn ethanol has a heavier carbon footprint than originally thought.

Many now argue over whether the US should continue to grow corn for fuel or make the switch to grasses that can be grown on less desirable land, with fewer pesticides and fertilizers, or use plant waste to make fuel.

Now a new debate looms: Should the US allow genetically altered corn to be grown for use as biofuel?

The Union of Concerned Scientists wants to stop that genie before it leaves the bottle, because it believes that genetically modified corn will inevitably mix with and contaminate corn grown for food products.

Syngenta, a multi-national agriculture company that has readied a new genetically modified corn intended for ethanol production, disagrees. The company has applied for permission to sell its corn seed in the US, telling officials that it would control where the crops are grown so that the GMO corn would not mix with the food supply.

“Corn Amylase will be produced and managed in such a way as to avoid the product entering the broad commodity grain streams,” the company says in a position paper. It proposes that the corn be handled in a “closed look type system” that would contain the grain and further promises that it will complete “full-scale trials” and discussions with industry stakeholders before putting the corn on the commercial market. The company is targeting the US market, but would apply for import clearances into other markets.

The newly developed “Corn Amylase” contains a new protein that breaks down corn starch under high temperatures and could reduce the cost of ethanol production, according to Syngenta. The company suggests in the position paper that the product also could boost crop yields (though it doesn’t offer a figure). In addition, it reports that a “detailed economic study” shows that Corn Amylase could reduce the energy, chemicals and water currently required to grow corn for ethanol.

The non-profit UCS, however, says that growing other types of plants for biofuel use would still be more efficient than growing row crops like corn.  The group is asking the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to exercise due diligence on the Syngenta request before de-regulating its use.

“We should be moving away from corn for ethanol and trying to get it from non-food crops; get it from switch grass instead of corn, and cellulose instead of food crops,” says Dr. Jane Rissler, a plant pathologist with the UCS who has been working on biotechnology issues for the past 25 years including a stint with the EPA.

These second-generation biofuels take less of a toll on the land, produce fewer greenhouse gases and don’t displace cropland for food production, she said.

As if we needed another scare this week, the tainted milk scandal in China continues to slip its moorings, with melamine, an industrial chemical never intended for human consumption, turning up in Lipton brand “milk tea powder” products destined for Asian markets as well as in good ol’ Nabisco Ritz cracker cheese sandwiches tested in South Korea.

International food giant Unilever announced today it was recalling certain Lipton milk teas from Hong Kong and Macau shelves because internal tests found melamine contamination. The company reported, however, that none of the affected products were destined for U.S. stores and that Unilever’s U.S. division does not import any milk ingredients from China.

Chocolate and coating suppliers in the U.S. have “confirmed that all of their products used in Unilever U.S. production” of ice cream and health drinks are unaffected by the melamine contamination in China, said company spokesman Dean Mastrojohn.

Meanwhile, South Korea officials reported finding melamine in Nabisco’s Ritz cracker cheese sandwiches and said they were banning imports of all Chinese-made food products containing powdered milk. (No calls back yet from Nabisco.)

Earlier, Cadbury also recalled 11 chocolate bars after tests found a small amount of melamine in six chocolate samples. Hong Kong authorities declared the contamination to be at a “safe level” – but Cadbury said it was still withdrawing the candy, made in Beijing.

Before that it was Mr. Brown Blend Instant Coffee and Mr. Brown French Vanilla Instant Coffee, and some other Mr. Brown’s brand coffees, on the hook for contamination, and…well, the list goes on.

Here’s a place to keep updated for products possibly entering American markets: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food advisory website. Unfortunately, it’s not up to the minute, but seems to suffer a two or three day lag time.

But back to melamine. You’ve probably heard that this poisoner of dogs and cats that crept into pet food made in China last year has been found over the past several weeks in a variety of brands of powdered milk products made in China. (For a rundown of how this chemical is intended to be used in floor tiles, whiteboards and other non-edible products, see wiseGEEK.

The melamine is believed to have been introduced to the milk products to circumvent quality-control tests — it registers as protein. It has sickened thousands of infants across China, killed four babies and threatened more tots in other Asian countries that imported (and have now banned) the products. The U.S. has so far not been affected by the baby formula, though other melamine-tainted products, such as White Rabbit candy have been distributed here.

Chinese women are being urged to turn to breastfeeding to limit the risk to their children. Authorities have rounded up more than two dozen suspects related to this spreading scandal.

China’s President Hu Jintao said today that the country needs to “ensure that all products on the market are up to standard, so consumers don’t have to worry.” This, nearly two full months after the first evidence of the melamine-milk problem surfaced.

The moral to the story? Those who seek comfort best stay out of the snack aisle.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

After an outbreak of bad publicity earlier this year over bisphenol-A (BPA), the plastic additive which dozens of studies identify as a potential carcinogen and endocrine disruptor, the U.S. government promised to take another look. Its conclusion: BPA is safe.

The Federal Drug Administration had previously cleared BPA for use in an array of consumer products, such as clear plastic baby bottles, the resin lining in food cans and many other items. It promised a new review of the science after Canada proposed a ban of BPA in baby bottles and manufacturers of polycarbonate water bottles began voluntarily giving up BPA. All cited concerns over the plastics’ tendency to leach when when warmed and possible harmful effects on humans, particularly children.

The results of the new FDA review were released last Thursday, about a month earlier than promised.

Lest anyone think the agency didn’t look very hard — the FDA had relied on plastics industry studies to support its initial approval of BPA — the regulators put out a 105-page draft on the topic. (Warning: You need medical expertise to read most of it.)

It found that the “”margins of safety” for human were sufficient for baby bottles and those epoxy can liners used in virtually all canned foods (shout out to Eden Organics for using better quality cans without BPA).

Those of us who would like to continue to eat canned chili and beans can take comfort that the U.S. report cites a similar review by the European Union in which regulators there also found no concern for alarm for BPA at “current exposures.”

Or we can heed the call to err on the side of caution, a sentiment implicit in the FDA’s own “message to consumers” put out during the reassessment period on its BPA info page:

“At this time, FDA is not recommending that anyone discontinue using products that contain BPA while we continue our risk assessment process. However, concerned consumers should know that several alternatives to polycarbonate baby bottles exist, including glass baby bottles.”

It’s unclear whether and when this advice will change because the FDA has promised to continue to consider new BPA studies and has called a September meeting on the topic for scientists. Meanwhile, the enduring controversy of BPA is unlikely to abate.

The FDA promised to put out a later safety report on BPA exposure from other FDA-regulated products.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media