By Bill Krasean, January 16 Kalamazoo Gazette [articles]
Cancer Prevention Coalition Chairman Dr. Samuel Epstein, author of the book "The Politics of Cancer Revisited," attempts to make the case that there is a cancer epidemic in the United States. He notes that between 1950 and 1988, there was a 43 percent increase in cancer rates and argues that the rise is the result of industrial carcinogens and other insidious factors inherent in contemporary society.
He notes that 1.2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed each year, with 500,000 Americans dying of the disease. Epstein is hardly the only soldier in the cancer-epidemic cadre of doom-sayers. Any number of people and organizations, such as his Chicago-based CPC, sound the toxin tocsin, arguing that we are under attack not just by industry but personal-care products, dirty air and polluted water. Many of these organizations argue that the government does not test most chemicals for harmful health effects nor does it consider the cumulative impact of these chemicals on public health and the environment.
For them, government is a dirty word - although they ignore the fact that "government" includes the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the state departments of Environmental Quality or Natural Resources, all of whom have made huge strides in contributing to efforts to help Americans live longer and healthier lives than ever. The word "chemical" is always used in the pejorative, forgetting that that life is chemistry in action.
What is the reality? Is there a cancer epidemic from all these "chemicals"? Are rates soaring because of damaged environment or government malfeasance? Without question more people than ever have been diagnosed with cancer. But that's primarily because there are more people than ever and we are living longer than ever. Cancer, after all, is mostly a disease of old age. With few exceptions, when you adjust for an aging population, the incidences of cancers are either steady or in decline. The most notable exceptions are lung cancer in women, melanoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Lung cancer, obviously, is a direct result of an increase in the number of women who smoke, a trend that began about four decades ago. Melanoma is likely associated with excessive sun exposure. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? A bit of a mystery, although the disease may be linked to high-protein diets, viral or other infections and occupational pesticide exposure.
Bruce Ames, one of the world's leading experts on cancer and aging, was recently awarded the National Medal of Science, the nation's highest scientific medal. He has strong and controversial views on cancer and the environment. And while you may not agree with his perspective, it's worth listening if only to put a broader context on the issue - and perhaps mitigate the worry. Ames talked about his views in the December issue of Environment & Climate News, published by the conservative Heartland Institute based in Chicago.
Smoking alone accounts for one-third of all cancers, Ames told editor John Baker. What about all those nasty chemicals in the environment? "My own guess is that - with the exception of a small amount of occupational cancer - there is almost nothing there. It's almost all hype," Ames said.
"Synthetic chemicals are just a drop in the bucket compared to natural chemicals. You make a thousand different chemicals when you roast your coffee. Every plant is full of natural pesticides it uses to kill insects. When you add it all up, 99.99 percent of the pesticides that go into you are natural, and .01 percent are synthetic residues."
Ames said there is no difference in harm between natural and synthetic chemicals. Studies have found that both cause almost the same degree of mutations, cancers and other toxicological consequences. "Why do we worship natural things and demonize synthetic chemicals?" he said. "Well, partially it was Rachel Carson's diatribe against DDT. DDT saved 100 million lives or more. It was the most valuable chemical ever invented by man. The fellow who invented it got a Nobel Prize. It was amazingly nontoxic to mammals, and it killed insects. And it was dirt cheap."
Ames said bad diet and smoking are the two biggest causes of cancer. "If you don't get enough folic acid (in your diet), you break your chromosomes," he said, referring to a trigger of changes in DNA that may lead to the uncontrolled cell growth called cancer. "If you don't get enough vitamin C, you break your chromosomes." So, too, vitamin B6, vitamin B12 and other micronutrients that may be missing in a poor diet. Poor people are more likely to have poor diets, he said, putting them at risk for not just cancer but heart disease and possible brain damage. "We spend practically no money on informing people about the importance of a good diet for health," he said. "Yet we spend $140 billion a year in the cost of EPA regulations. Some Harvard economists have estimated we would save 150 times more lives for the dollar if we put the EPA money into medical interventions instead of toxic interventions. And the lives saved on toxic interventions are fake lives since they are based on a whole series of wrong assumptions."
Ames said it would be difficult to make such changes, however. "There is the self-interest of lawyers, activists, scientists and bureaucrats," he said. "Everyone likes to feel they are working for altruism, while 'industry' is working for greed. Critical thinking is always much rarer than enthusiasm."
In other observations in the interview, Ames praised the FDA, noted that conservative politicians are more likely to see his point of view than liberals and said many toxicologists agree that the "terror over traces of synthetic chemicals doesn't have much scientific support."
"My passion is preventing cancer," he told Baker, "and the way to do that is to get people to eat decent diets and stop smoking. Those are the two things that really matter." For a complete text of the Ames interview, read We can prevent cancer: “If we behave ourselves” an interview with Dr. Bruce N. Ames