I had never heard of this panel - appointed during the Bush Administration, no less - and went right to its 2008-2009 annual report (PDF).
The Panel says that the "risk of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated," that "nearly 80,000 chemicals [are] on the market in the United States, many of which are ... understudied and largely unregulated," and that "the public remains unaware ... that children are far more vulnerable to environmental toxins and radiation than adults."
evidence suggests that some environmental agents may initiate or promote cancer by disrupting normal immune and endocrine system functions. The burgeoning number and complexity of known or suspected environmental carcinogens compel us to act to protect public health, even though we may lack irrefutable proof of harm.I'm guessing this report will cause a furor. Why? "Lack irrefutable proof" means the science isn't there. In this situation, the Panel advises precaution. Check out these examples selected from the recommendations:
- Parents and child care providers should choose foods, house and garden products, play spaces, toys, medicines, and medical tests that will minimize children's exposure to toxics. Ideally, both mothers and fathers should avoid exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
- It is preferable to use filtered tap water instead of commercially bottled water.
- Exposure to pesticides can be decreased by choosing ... food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers [translation: organics] and washing conventionally grown produce to remove residues.
- Exposure to antibiotics, growth hormones, and toxic run-off from livestock feedlots can be minimized by eating free-range meat [translation: don't eat feedlot meat].
Elements of this report are entirely consistent with the recently published "American Cancer Society Perspective on Environmental Factors and Cancer" ... Unfortunately, the perspective of the report is unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer, and by its dismissal of cancer prevention efforts aimed at the major known causes of cancer (tobacco, obesity, alcohol, infections, hormones, sunlight) as "focused narrowly" ... it would be unfortunate if the effect of this report were to trivialize the importance of other modifiable risk factors that, at present, offer the greatest opportunity in preventing cancer.ACS says the Panel does not back up its recommendations with enough research. Maybe, but why isn't ACS pushing for more and better research on these chemicals? However small the risks - and we hardly know anything about them - these chemicals are unlikely to be good for human health. Doesn't precaution make sense? I think so.
About the author
Marion Nestle is professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University, and the author of Food Politics, Safe Food, What to Eat, and Pet Food Politics.
The smokers, the fats, the drinkers, the sun bather to mask the effects of : pesticides, antibiotics, fertilizers, growth hormone, and all the chemicals add up to the food, the air, the water,...
Why after so much decades of research about cancer does it fail so miserabilly ?
The only response from the mainstream doctors is to make you feel guilty : you smoke ! You drink too much ! you eat too much ! You take too much sun bath !
If they wasn't payed to keep the satus quo running maybe their questions will be : What do they put in the tobacco ? How alcohol is processed ? What do they put in the food ? What did happen to the ozone layer ?
But it is more convenient to make feel guilty the peoples for their habits than to make feel guilty the industry for their habits.
I think that (most of the)doctors are just stooges !