Cancer report energizes activists, not policy
WASHINGTON |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A cancer report that concludes Americans are under constant assault from carcinogenic agents has heartened activists, who hope that finally government and policymakers will pay attention to their concerns.
Cancer experts say for the most part that we already know what causes most cases of cancer and it's not pollution or chemicals lurking in our water bottles. It's tobacco use and other unhealthy behaviors, says Dr. Graham Colditz of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
"The lack of physical activity, weight gain, obesity clearly account for 20 percent or more of cancer in the United States today," Colditz said in a telephone interview.
The report, he said, gives people an excuse to ignore the risk factors most in their control.
"The damage is that it distracts us, as a society, from actually acting on the things that are already in our grasp. I can take tobacco as the best example," said Colditz, noting that more than 20 percent of Americans still smoke despite nearly 50 years of cancer warnings.
And no state has even come close to banning smoking, although limits are going into place to restrict smoking in public.
"We know that alcohol causes 4 percent (of cancers) and we deal with that to too little extent, as well," said Colditz, an expert in the epidemiology of cancer. Red meat is a known cause of colon cancer, he adds. "We don't run out and ban all beef just because beef is a cause of colon cancer."
UNDERSTUDIED OR OVEREMPHASIZED?
So it worries Colditz to see the two-member cancer panel -- Dr. LaSalle Leffall, professor of surgery at Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, and Margaret Kripke, an emeritus professor at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center -- recommend sweeping policy changes to focus on potential environmental causes of cancer.
"Maybe up to 4 percent of cancer in the western world is caused by contaminants and pollution and yet we are chasing new, unknown causes rather that focusing on acting on what we know," he said. "Things like this report are making it harder to move the nation to a healthier lifestyle."
Kenneth Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an activist group that conducts research into environmental health questions, disagrees with the assessment that chemical causes of cancer are only in the single digits.
"As this prestigious body's report underscores, the federal government has failed to take aggressive action to protect people from chemicals that cause cancer," Cook said in a statement.
Cook hopes the report will prompt changes. "The tide is shifting, thanks to irrefutable scientific research and a strengthening of political will in Washington."
But one government researcher, who asks not to be named, doubts it. "In the past the President's Cancer Panel has not had much impact," the researcher said.
The panel was set up in 1971 as part of then-President Richard Nixon's "war on cancer." It calls for more research into the potential chemical and environmental causes of cancer, including mobile phones and a plastic ingredient called BPA.
Such research is already under way and the agencies conducting it say it will take years and studying many thousands of people to tease out potential cancer signals.
One big problem -- people are soaked in chemicals, electromagnetic radiation, hormones and other known causes of cancer that can interact with thousands of genetic variations to start tumors growing -- or not. Figuring out whether any one ingredient is mutating a gene or set of genes in a certain way will be difficult.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a program to test 5,000 people each year for dozens of chemicals and to collate a database over time.
And last month researchers launched a giant study to track at least 250,000 people in five European countries for up to 30 years to see if there are any health effects from using mobile telephones.
(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
Assuming a confusing explanation to begin and then a tremendous understatement to end in the above.
Did you mean to say that no state has outlawed tobacco when you say “no state has come close to banning smoking”? Because indeed the vast majority of states have “banned smoking.” And not just the soft sounding “limits to restrict smoking.”
The extent to which smoking has been banned across the country has been draconian. Reuters’ description ignores the horrendous infringement on individual liberties and private property rights at the hands of the anti-smoker advocates. It’s been a heavy-handed crusade, not the “less-than-impressive” as implied.
I don’t agree with panel’s conclusion on cancer causes and do not look forward to any other nanny-state policies that can come from it but I’m as disgusted with the panel’s detractors who essentially want to blame just about every illness on tobacco. It’s an injustice to the population that suffer from inattention if they don’t smoke and even those that do. With all the focus on smoking and obesity by health organizations because they’re obsessed with imposing their will on others (”don’t smoke!” and “don’t eat that!”) they’re not moving forward as they should on cancer in general. How many nonsmokers who present with lung cancer symptoms have been waved away by doctors because they don’t smoke? And by the time they are diagnosed too much time has passed.
Find real causes of cancer that people DON’T accept as risk if undertaken(smoking and food). The ACS just might finally get somewhere on cancers that no one invited (like a contagious disease versus breaking a leg while skiing).
Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.)
If smoking is the only cause of lung cancer, for example, why is it that not all smokers get it?? If obesity causes colon cancer, how do slim people get it?
There have to be other contributing factors than smoking or obesity and I DO BELIEVE that environmental factors are part of that!! How do little babies get cancer when they aren’t exposed to smoke and aren’t big enough to be obese. Those statements are ridiculous.



Follow Reuters