New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer

[Zeno Swijtink]

May 6, 2010
OP-ED COLUMNIST
New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

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 https://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com or 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.

•

I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

[Braggi]

May 6, 2010
OP-ED COLUMNIST
New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF ... .

Zeno, did you do your research before posting this? You're posting an opinion piece, written in a very misleading fashion, on an opinion piece. This isn't about research and facts. It's about one person's opinion. Have you looked into who makes up this "President's Cancer Panel?" It's one 80 plus year old man and his assistant. Sorry, this isn't science.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

The report Kristof's op-ed is based on was produced for The President’s Cancer Panel by Suzanne Reuben of the National Cancer Institute, Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities, and was vetted by staff at the National Institute of Health.

It's available at https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory..._08-09_508.pdf

This report is submitted to the President of the United States in fulfillment of the obligations of the President’s Cancer Panel to appraise the National Cancer Program as established in accordance with the National Cancer Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-218), the Health Research Extension Act of 1987 (P.L. 99-158), the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-43), and Title V, Part A, Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281 et seq.).

I know, Jeff, that you have never hesitated to attack the high and mighty, but, pray, how is the age of the panel's chairman relevant for the cogency of these recommendations?

Zeno, did you do your research before posting this? You're posting an opinion piece, written in a very misleading fashion, on an opinion piece. This isn't about research and facts. It's about one person's opinion. Have you looked into who makes up this "President's Cancer Panel?" It's one 80 plus year old man and his assistant. Sorry, this isn't science.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

The report Kristof's op-ed is based on was produced for The President’s Cancer Panel by Suzanne Reuben of the National Cancer Institute, Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities, and was vetted by staff at the National Institute of Health. ...

And, as I said, it's an opinion piece, based upon a review of studies, I agree, but still, it's a lot of opinion not necessarily supported by solid science.

One might label it, much ado about issues that are not settled. A lot of the recommendations aren't supported by any studies. They are opinion.

I'm all for reducing our exposure to toxic chemicals. That report, however, isn't anything to pass a lot of laws over.

-Jeff

PS. As "they" say, more research is necessary.

[Zeno Swijtink]

And, as I said, it's an opinion piece, based upon a review of studies, I agree, but still, it's a lot of opinion not necessarily supported by solid science.

One might label it, much ado about issues that are not settled. A lot of the recommendations aren't supported by any studies. They are opinion.

I'm all for reducing our exposure to toxic chemicals. That report, however, isn't anything to pass a lot of laws over.

-Jeff

PS. As "they" say, more research is necessary.

Why are you so worked up by this that you made this agist slur?

[Braggi]

Why are you so worked up by this that you made this agist slur?

Zeno, I didn't call the author an old fart. I just made a statement describing the team that wrote up the report using words other than the "Mount Everest of the medical mainstream" which makes it sound like the Nobel committee gets their marching orders from these folks.

My concern is with those nasty old unexpected consequences. If you make a really big deal about this report (already done, I'm afraid), those on "the other side" could take it apart for lack of scientific support in a number of areas as we've seen whenever there is the slightest weakness in an otherwise powerful model such as global warming. We don't need to give the chemical companies any ammunition.

The other major concern is the people who are already off the deep end building their lives into some kind of bizarre cocoon to protect themselves from every "outgas," toxin and mold spore because they're pretty sure they'll turn into one huge tumor the moment they let up on their absolute diligence. I have a friend who practically ruined her life for 20 years because of "nocebo" illness. It's still really hard for her to go into an unfamiliar building because she's afraid some lingering toxin will get her and make her weak or ill for days. This kind of sensationalized report feeds that particular frenzy and frankly, this lady I refer to has cost "the system" hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to define her problem and treat the symptoms. It's very sad.

I repeat that I agree with the sentiment. I just don't think it's a well enough supported document to be making this kind of news about.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

Cancer Panel Urges U.S. to Overhaul Regulation of Harmful Chemicals
By Matthew Richmond on May 6, 2010

Toxic exposure laws are coming under increased scrutiny as a presidential advisory panel on cancer released a report Thursday on threats posed by chemicals at work and in the environment.

From the report:

With the growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the unacceptable burden of cancer resulting from environmental and occupational exposures that could have been prevented through appropriate national action.

The President’s Cancer Panel cited increasing rates of cancer in children and the presence of industrial chemicals in umbilical cords to illustrate the severity of the problem, The Washington Post reports.

The panel recommended an overhaul in government regulation of chemicals, loosening the restrictions on the government’s ability to declare a chemical unsafe. Of the 80,000 chemicals in commercial use in the U.S., only about 200 have been tested for safety by the federal government.

The limited testing has come under criticism from the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s newest plans for enforcement priorities, issued in April, are not close to sufficient, PEER says.

Under the new enforcement plan, which is still much stronger than under the Bush administration and at the end of the Clinton administration, only two or three new health standards for workplace chemicals would be completed by the beginning of 2013. OSHA chief David Michaels said the agency does not have enough resources for more thorough regulation.