AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.Click here to visit the new home of Politics Daily!
And then there's the oh-so-predictable response of the American Cancer Society. Toxic chemicals? Weak laws? Lax regulation? Influence of industry lobbyists?Richard Clapp, a professor of environmental health at Boston University, said the significance of the report cannot be overstated. "For the President's Cancer Panel to take as strong a position as it has on both occupational and environmental causes of cancer is unprecedented," Clapp said. The report comes on the heels of legislation in the Senate and the House to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), widely considered to be ineffective.
But that's nothing new. Reports from the President's Cancer Panel, founded by the National Cancer Act in 1971, are supposed to be narrowly focused. Previous titles have included "Promoting Healthy Lifestyles" (just two years ago, Dr. Thun, so maybe people remember?) and "Facing Cancer in Indian Country."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."
Matthew Zachary, young adult survivor and founder/CEO at the I'm Too Young for This! Cancer Foundation, e-mailed this reply: "The American Cancer Society is living in a bubble if they believe that traditional cancer prevention practices are the only thing out there that matters when it comes to reducing death and suffering due to a cancer diagnosis -- especially for the next generation of patients and survivors."The ACS provides cover to polluters by attacking the Panel's report. The American Cancer Society has a long history of trivializing the environmental causes of cancer, at significant cost to public health. The Society's position is particularly unfortunate because it slows progress toward cancer prevention that will ultimately save lives. Instead of attacking the Panel report and fighting efforts to strengthen public protections from environmental carcinogens, the ACS should take the lead in research and policies that prevent these exposures.
As tempting as it is to blame cancer patients for their plights and as tempting as it is to believe that you can prevent a complicated, incurable, often savage disease simply by assuming a yoga pose, smiling more often and eating organic carrots, I urge readers to muster their courage and take a look at the facts.According to Jeanne Rizzo, president of the Breast Cancer Fund, the panel started its investigation thinking the connection between cancer and environmental exposures might have been exaggerated by public fears and activist pressure. But [panel members Dr. Leffall and Dr. Kripke] developed a "voracious appetite" and reviewed 450 research reports and other documents linking environmental exposures with cancer, Rizzo said. "When you delve into the science literature, it quickly becomes persuasive," added Julia Brody, director of the Silent Spring Institute.
News From Our Partners
More on Aol
Sites and Services