Last week, the President's Cancer Panel released a report entitled "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now." I first learned about the report on May 6 from an op-ed column by Nicholas Kristof. I enjoyed Mr. Kristof's summary of the report, though the information it contained did not shock me: as a cancer researcher, I already knew that environmental factors are involved in causing cancer.
The next day, however, I was surprised to learn that the American Cancer Society has criticized the Panel's report by saying that it overstates the risks. Because I was curious about their reaction, I decided to download the Panel's whole report, and here are my comments.
The Panel's report is excellent, and everyone should read it. It not only tells us about the various factors in our environment that pose a risk of cancer but also tells us how we can minimize these risks.
Has the Panel overstated the risks? My answer is no.
As the Panel points out, we are currently using over 80,000 chemicals in our daily lives, and only a few hundred of these have been evaluated for their cancer-causing potential. The fact that we have already identified several cancer-causing chemicals by testing only a small fraction of the ones we use tells me that the Panel is right to recommend caution and further research.
The Panel rightly points out that we are devoting more resources to understanding cancer genetics and the molecular pathways of cancer than we are to understanding the environmental triggers of cancer.
While the Panel has produced a comprehensive report, I feel that it did not give sufficient attention to the special risks environmental chemicals pose for the elderly.
According to the American Cancer Society's Cancer Facts & Figures 2009 report, about 77percent of all cancers are detected in people 55 years of age and older. Perhaps one cause of this high rate of cancer in the elderly might be toxic chemicals in the environment.
Why would the elderly be more vulnerable to the toxic effects of chemicals?
The answer is that with age, our bodies' ability to metabolize and eliminate chemicals decreases; this means that chemicals can stay longer in an older body and hence cause more damage.
A decrease in our bodies' ability to metabolize and excrete drugs (which are chemicals) is one of the reasons that adverse drug effects are so common in the elderly.
So I suggest that although all of us should be aware of the dangers posed by environmental factors, those of us who are over 60 should be even more vigilant.
The Panel's report has made me add one more item to my list of things to do to stay healthy after turning 60: follow the recommendations of the President's Cancer Panel to reduce the health risks posed by environmental factors.
Some of these recommendations are:
1) Filtering home tap water and not storing water in plastic bottles
2) Not using plastic plates to heat food in a microwave oven
3) Eating food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers
4) Avoiding processed, charred and well-done meats
5) Reducing cell phone usage
6) Reducing exposure to radiation from medical sources by discussing with healthcare providers whether medical tests or procedures (such as CT-scans) that use radiation are really necessary
7) Checking home radon levels
Let me know your reaction to the Panel's report.
Follow Madan Kwatra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mkwatra
Dr. Walter Crinnion: Pesticide Loss: A Massive Public Health Issue
President's Cancer Panel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cancer Panel: Chemicals 'Grossly Underestimated' as Carcinogens
Chemical and air pollution linked to American deaths from cancer and heart disease
My 11 year old daughter is being treated for OVARIAN cancer, which I believe is the likely result of endocrine disruptors in the environment. The Panel talked at length about the issue.
I promised my daughter I would fight for change, but I can't do it alone; I NEED help! Many, many cancers ARE PREVENTABLE, as was made clear in the report. PLEASE take 2 minutes to sign this petition compeling President Obama to implement the recommendations made by the Panel, we CAN make a difference!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/presidents-cancer-panel
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100513/OPINION/5130326
The crux was that "While we think more chemicals need to be evaluated for safety, we also believe the alarming report lacked important context.
Environmental factors, such as air or water pollution, contribute relatively little to the cancer burden in the United States.
Most cancers are caused by known risk factors, such as smoking, diet, family history and lifestyle choices.
Dr. Michael Thun, an epidemiologist from the American Cancer Society, told the New York Times that the report was "unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer."
Dr. Graham Colditz of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis said only about four percent of cancer in the Western world is caused by contaminants and pollution.
"The lack of physical activity, weight gain, obesity clearly account for 20 percent or more of cancer in the United States today," Colditz told Reuters.
The report, he said, gives people an excuse to ignore the risk factors most in their control."
My view is that we need a "full court press" in the fight against cancer, and not a hierarchical approach where certain causes deemed more "dominating" be dealt with first before other causes are dealt with. I'd love to see more electric vehicles and less combustion vehicles for starters.
Is it a "lifestyle" choice to eat foods laden with pesticides? Or live next to a polluting factory?
The ACS works for corporate interests seeking to downplay the relationship between their pollution and cancer. In years past, for example, the ACS opposed revisions of a the Clean Air Act that would hurt the profits of their corporate funders.