Skip to main content

Cross Posted at Earth Friendly Shopping

The President's Panel on cancer recently released a report calling for a fundamental rethinking of the way we approach cancer and the toxins in our lives.

Calling our current approach "reactionary"  (wait until a chemical is proven harmful, and then work on cleanup and remediation.) the panel calls for a preventive approach.  One that focuses on removing toxins from our lives, and replacing our current chemistry with a green chemistry.  

They also call for a shift in regulatory processes, where instead of the burden being on regulators to prove a chemical hazardous, industry must prove it safe.

AND they make special note of the vulnerability of children to toxins.

Come over the jump and read more

To find out why - follow me over

A little disclosure - My wife and I own a green eCommerce business where we sell some of the products discussed.  We would clearly benefit from the approach advocated by the panel.  I have links to some of our products in appropriate places in this post

We’ve been singing the praises of going organic for years.   We sell organic snacks,  (especially organic chocolate) and have recently  added more organic body care. So, it was gratifying to see this new report from The President’s Cancer Panel titled their 2008-2009 annual report “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risks – What we can do now”  (PDF – 7.2MB) The report was based on the testimony of 45 experts gathered during 4 meetings held between 2008  and 2009.   As Nicholas Kristof noted in his NY Times op-ed “it’s an extraordinary document.

What makes this document so remarkable is that it calls for a fundamental rethinking in the way we approach reducing cancer risks.   Historically, our approach to cancer has been “reactionary”.  The focus has been on early detection and treatment of cancers.  While there has been some success reducing the cancer mortality rate,  cancer still extracts an enormous toll on society.

In 2009, nearly 1.5 million new cases of cancer are expected to be diagnosed in the United States, and an estimated 562,000 Americans will die from this disease.1 Approximately 41 percent of people in the U.S. will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent of Americans will die from cancer.

The incidence of some cancers, including some common among children  is increasing for “unexplained reasons”

The report is over 200 pages,  and there are recommendations for individuals, for government policy, and for the scientific community.  But what it boils down to is that we need to stop poisoning ourselves, and especially we need to stop poisoning our children.

The key recommendations

  • Switch from a “reactive”   approach to a preventive approach

  • Reduce the toxins in our life
  • Replace our current chemistry to a “green” chemistry
  • Shift the burden of proof from regulators, who must prove a chemical harmful before cleanup can begin to industry being required to prove a chemical is safe before it can be put into use.
  • Switch from a “reactive”  approach to a preventive approach

    .. our current reactionary approach to cancer prevention, in which human harm must be proven before action is taken to reduce or eliminate exposure,  be replaced by a precautionary, prevention driven approach.

    There are over 80,000 chemicals in use in the U.S. today.  Only a few hundred have been tested for safety.  Even in those cases, the testing really doesn’t emulate the type of exposure most common in the environment.  The way chemicals are typically tested for safety, is by giving a test animal a lethal dose of the chemical.  Doses are reduced on subsequent animal tests until negative effects are no longer detectable.

    This dose, called the “no observed adverse effect level” (NOAEL), is considered the highest dose that poses an acceptable risk. The NOAEL is then adjusted for a series of safety factors to determine the final reference dose. Once the NOAEL is established for a substance, testing at lower doses is seldom conducted, and very low-dose effects are unlikely to be detected.

    There are several problems with this method. 1st) It assumes that exposure happens in isolation, and that is rarely the case.  Almost always we are exposed to a stew of different chemicals on a daily basis.  2)It assumes that exposure happens at one time, when most chemical exposures happen over long periods of time, such as in the daily use of a shampoo or other chemicals at work. 3)The animals tested are mostly mature, and there is little testing young animals, or prenatal.  Yet the effect on children, newborns, or prenatals is dramatically different.

    The panel makes the point repeatedly that children and prenatals are espeically at risk.

    (children).. are at special risk due to their smaller body mass and rapid physical development, both of which magnify their vulnerability to known or suspected carcinogens, including radiation. Numerous environmental contaminants can cross the placental barrier; to a disturbing extent, babies are born “pre-polluted.”  

    Reduce the Toxins in Our Lives

    Our modern industrial life style surrounds us with toxins.  From solvents used as cleaners, to pesticides used in agriculture, to chemicals used in the found in common consumer products, we are constantly exposed to toxins.

    The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals, some of which also are used in residential and commercial landscaping. Many of these chemicals have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which are toxic. Many of the solvents, fillers, and other chemicals listed as inert ingredients on pesticide labels also are toxic, but are not required to be tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer. In addition to pesticides, agricultural fertilizers and veterinary pharmaceuticals are major contributors to water pollution, both directly and as a result of chemical processes that form toxic by-products when these substances enter the water supply.

    These toxins build up in our food supply, and ultimately our bodies.  One example is bisphenol A (BPA), used to harden plastics and line food cans.  BPA has been linked to a variety of health problems, including cancer.  It is estimated that biologically active volume of BPA can be found in the urine of 93% of Americans.

    Recommendations to reduce exposure to toxins include:

    Storing and carryingwater in stainless steel, glass, or BPA- and phthalate-free containers  will reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting and other chemicals that may leach into water from plastics.  This action also will decrease the need for plastic bottles, the manufacture of which produces toxic by-products, and reduce the need to dispose of and recycle plastic bottles.  Similarly, microwaving food and beverages in ceramic or glass instead of plastic containers will reduce exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals that may leach into food when containers are heated.

    Exposure to pesticides can be decreased by choosing, to the extent possible, food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers and washing conventionally grown produce to remove residues.  Similarly, exposure to antibiotics, growth hormones, and toxic run-off from livestock feed lots can be minimized by eating free-range  meat raised without these medications if it is available.

    Replace our current chemistry with a green chemistry

    The panel discusses the need for a “green chemistry” the principles of which were defined more than a decade ago.  Here are a few of the principles

  • Prevent waste that requires • treatment or clean-up.
  • Design chemicals and products to be fully effective but have little or no toxicity.
  • Develop less hazardous ways to  synthesize chemicals.
  • Use renewable raw materials.
  • Shift the burden of proof from regulators, who must prove a chemical harmful before cleanup can begin to industry being required to prove a chemical is safe before it can be put into use.

    Weak laws and regulations, inefficient enforcement, regulatory complexity, and fragmented authority allow avoidable exposures to known or suspected cancer-causing and cancer-promoting agents to continue and proliferate in the workplace and the community. Existing regulations, and the exposure assessments on which they are based, are outdated in most cases, and many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated. Enforcement of most existing regulations is poor. In virtually all cases, regulations fail to take multiple exposures and exposure interactions into account. In addition, regulations for workplace environments are focused more on safety than on health. Industry has exploited regulatory weaknesses, such as government’s reactionary (rather than precautionary) approach to regulation. Likewise, industry has exploited government’s use of the flawed and grossly outdated Doll and Peto methodology for assessing “attributable fractions” of the cancer burden due to specific environmental exposures. This methodology has been used effectively by industry to justify introducing untested chemicals into the environment.

    While this report is only (at best) a first step, it is still encouraging to see a main stream medical panel call so strongly for a prevention oriented, sustainable approach.

    Let us hope that this report provides a foundation we can build on.

    Originally posted to EcoLogicLee on Wed May 12, 2010 at 01:32 PM PDT.

    EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
    Your Email has been sent.
    You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

    Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
    Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

    ?

    More Tagging tips:

    A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

    Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

    If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

    Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

    Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

    You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
    Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
    Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
    Rescue this diary, and add a note:
    Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
    Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

    You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

    Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
    Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
    (The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
    (The diary will be removed.)
    Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

    Comment Preferences

    Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

    Click here for the mobile view of the site