Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancer

A new report by the Cancer Working Group of the Collaborative on Health and Environment reviews the state of our knowledge about the causes of cancer.

First, a bit of history: Sir Richard Doll was a famous British epidemiologist. In 1954 he was one of the first scientists to warn of the link between asbestos and cancer. Through the 1950s and 1960s, he continued to warn about the link between various exposures and cancer, but then in the 1970s and beyond, he seemed to back away from making such connections. By the 1980s, he was publishing oft-cited scientific papers suggesting that over 90% of all cancers were linked to lifestyle, and that fewer than 4% had any environmental or occupational connection. His numbers were widely used to justify a status-quo approach to cancer research, and to support the pursuit of new treatment options rather than implementing prevention strategies.

Doll passed away in 2005. His papers were donated to the Wellcome Library, a British medical library. Researchers reviewing the collection discovered that Doll had been on the dole: he received regular payments as a "consultant" from Monsanto, DOW Chemical, Turner & Newell (an asbestos company) and the Chemical Manufacturers Association, beginning by 1979 and continuing almost to his death. He never disclosed his relationship with these special interests, even when testifying before government entities around the world about the safety of the chemical products they made.

Blame smoking. Blame bad eating habits. But don't blame the chemicals we're exposed to. Hmmm. You can read more on the Doll story, here, at Our Stolen Future.

Over the years, people in environmental health questioned Doll's numbers, yet he was considered the pillar of respectability, and his results and opinion were bandied about with great authority by anyone wanting to downplay environmental links to our health. Three environmental health researchers decided to do some digging to see if Doll's numbers stood up to scrutiny. Richard Clapp, Molly Jacobs, and Genevieve Howe plunged into a literature survey, reading all the published studies and reports they could find. Their 2005 conclusion: "Environmental and occupational contributions to cancer in the U.S. are substantial and justify continued efforts to prevent these types of exposures."

This year, Clapp, Jacobs, and researcher Edward Loechler, revisited the earlier report, Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancer, A Review of Recent Scientific Literature, studying over one hundred papers and reports that have seen print since their first review. What did they find? Unfortunately, nothing unexpected: The evidence is stronger than ever for a link between many exposures we face with some regularity and cancer, such as:

breast cancer to DDT exposure, particularly before puberty;

brain cancer from nonionizing radiation, particularly from radiofrequency fields emitted by mobile telephones;

non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from exposure to pesticides and solvents;

lung cancer from bad air days (pollution);

and, prostate cancer from exposure to pesticides, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metal working fluids or mineral oils.

In this year's report, the authors come out forcefully. Perhaps, surprisingly so. Remember, scientists are trained to avoid opinionated conclusions, to remain comfortable in the sanctuary of their numbers and their peer-reviewed publications. Yet Clapp, Jacobs, and Loechler concluded this year's report with this:

We consider the scientific literature linking environmental and occupational exposures to cancer to be substantial and getting stronger as time goes on. One of us (R.Clapp) has been reviewing this literature for over thirty years. In the 1970s there were approximately a dozen substances or exposures that were considered “established” human carcinogens by international agencies. That number now approaches 100, with many more considered “likely” to cause cancer in humans. As we noted in our previous review, incidence rates for many types of cancer in the U.S. continue to rise, although we welcome the apparent decline in lung cancer in males and soon in females. The cancer burden, defined as the number of people living with cancer, with the attendant economic and human costs, will inevitably continue to grow.

This justifies urgent action to limit exposures to avoidable environmental and occupational carcinogens and to find safer alternatives to present chemical and physical risks. To repeat the call of ecologist Sandra Steingraber, “From the right to know and the duty to inquire flows the obligation to act.”

The report can be downloaded here.

In the news: Thoughts on 'balanced' reporting

Last night I cruised to CNN online to check out the status of the fires in southern California (my thoughts go out to the people living through this catastrophic event). I noticed a "Quick Vote" questionnaire asking, "Do man-made chemicals in plastics or textiles pose a threat to your health?" I couldn't resist answering, and when I did I was pleased by the results CNN showed: 84% of the 70,000+ respondents had said yes! Awareness is growing, and with awareness comes the ability to do something about problems.

CNN had included this poll on their website because they had run an article, entitled Tests reveal high chemical levels in kids' bodies See it here.

The article quotes Elizabeth Whelan, the President of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) to provide "balance". Whelan and other ACSH staffers and board members are regular balancers on news channels. In the article, Whelan says, 'My concern about this trend about measuring chemicals in the blood is it's leading people to believe that the mere ability to detect chemicals is the same as proving a hazard, that if you have this chemical, you are at risk of a disease, and that is false.' It goes on to say, "Whelan contends that trace levels of industrial chemicals in our bodies do not necessarily pose health risks."

Whelan may be right that a trace found in the body isn't proof that you are at risk of a disease from these exposures. But here's my thought on the subject: Elizabeth, you can have all the traces of industrial chemicals you want in your body, but I don't want them in my body. Whether there is absolute proof of peril or not, the overwhelming body of evidence points to the fact that these chemicals are impacting us in bad ways!

So, when it comes to "balanced" reporting, remember the old adage, "follow the money." ACSH is a nonprofit that bills itself as a consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health. That sounds good. But their funding comes from a veritable who's who of corporations, from ALCOA, Allied Signals, American Cyanamid and the American Meat Institute to Union Carbide, Uniroyal, and USX.

SourceWatch, an online service dedicated "to documenting the PR and propaganda activities of public relations firms and public relations professionals engaged in managing and manipulating public perception, opinion and policy," is a good place to learn about the balancers. They say, "To its credit, [ACSH] has taken a strong public position against the dangers of tobacco, one of the leading preventable causes of death in today's society. However, it takes a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry."

I guess 84% of the people who answered the question think like me: Better safe than sorry!

Clean Up Cleaning

Here's a challenge: Go to the bathroom or kitchen and look under your sink. How many bottles, cans, and containers of stuff are under there? For most Americans, there are a bunch: dish detergent, general-purpose spray and powdered cleansers, specialty cleansers (such as brass polish, furniture polish, or oven cleaner), maybe even some bug spray. That small space epitomizes our infatuation with chemical concoctions.

This month the environmental group Women's Voices for the Earth released a report, Household Hazards: Potential Hazards of Home Cleaning Products, on some of the health concerns associated with these products. For example, monoethanolamine, a surfactant found in some laundry detergents, all-purpose cleaners and floor cleaners, is a known contributor of occupational asthma, and glycol ethers, such as 2-butoxyethanol, are solvents commonly found in glass cleaners and all-purpose spray cleaners that have been linked to reduced fertility and low birth weight in exposed mice.

So, what can you do to keep your house clean, but protect yourself from these chemicals? First, begin winnowing out the stuff under the sink. If you haven't used it in a long time, just get rid of it. Next, when you go to the store, start looking for safer cleaning products: companies like Seventh Generation and Ecover have consciously reduced toxic chemicals in their products. Or learn some of the tricks your grandmother knew: use vinegar and baking powder (which are both also really cheap) instead of synthetic products.

Cheapy white vinegar (I buy it by the gallon) mixed one to one with water and a teaspoon of salt in a spray bottle makes a great general-purpose cleanser that readily cleans most surfaces, and is perfect for removing soap scum from around sinks and fixtures. A cup of pure vinegar poured in the toilet and allowed to soak for an hour or so is great for cleaning the toilet and makes brushing out alkaline deposits a cinch. Add half a cup to the rinse cycle in your washer, where it acts as a fabric softener.

Baking soda works in place of abrasive cleansers, but it won't scratch shiny surfaces. If something is spilled on the carpet, pour some baking soda on, work into the spill with a paper towel, let it dry, and then vacuum it up. Use it as a polish for aluminum, chrome, jewelry, plastic, porcelain, silver, stainless steel, and tin by moistening a little on a soft rag.