On May 6th of 2010, a report titled, "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now", the 2008-2009 Annual Report of the President's Cancer Panel, dated, April, 2010 was provided to the public.

 The report can be accessed in full at the URL found below: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf 

This report was produced by the President's Cancer Panel, which was created by an act of Congress in1971.  The Panel is charged with monitoring the National Cancer Program.  In the Cancer Panel's letter to President Barak Obama, which accompanies the report, the cochairs of the Panel wrote: 

"The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread. One such ubiquitous chemical, bisphenol A (BPA), is still found in many consumer products and remains unregulated in the United States, despite the growing link between BPA and several diseases, including various cancers." 

"Environmental exposures that increase the national cancer burden do not represent a new front in the ongoing war on cancer. However, the grievous harm from this group of carcinogens has not been addressed adequately by the National Cancer Program. The American people—even before they are born—are bombarded continually with myriad combinations of these dangerous exposures. The Panel urges you most strongly to usethe power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives." 

This is a science based cancer prevention message.  It is the strongest message of this type that has thus far been set forth by federal government.  Our national government is finally beginning to move in the right direction on cancer burden reduction. 

In Part III of this report, Taking Action to Reduce Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do, the following statement is found.   

"Individuals and communities are not being provided all available information about environmental exposures they have experienced, the cumulative effects of such exposures, and how to minimize harmful exposures. The disproportionate burden of exposure to known or suspected carcinogens experienced by specific populations (e.g., agricultural and chemical workers and their families, radiation-exposed groups such as uranium mine workers, nuclear industry workers, nuclear test site workers and "downwinders," residents of cancer "hot spots" or other contaminated areas) has not been fully acknowledged." 

Part III contains a list of recommendations as to what an individual can do to reduce his/her exposure to various cancer causing agents and chemical carcinogens.  However, reducing exposure to carcinogenic persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which contaminate all animal fat, is not included in the list of recommendations.  Exposure to carcinogenic POPs in the food supply comprises a major proportion of total pollutant carcinogen exposure. This particular food supply consumption exposure route is certainly assignificant as exposure to chemical carcinogens in non-food consumer products, respiratory exposure to exhaust carcinogens and exposure to carcinogenic pesticides which contaminate non-organic fruits and vegetables.  

Despite the fact that this report constitutes the best effort of federal government thus far to address the matter of reducing cancer incidence at a time when cancer exists at epidemic levels in the United States, the report fails to come close to providing Americans with a state of scientific knowledge set of cancer prevention recommendations.  It is outrageous that the President's Cancer Panel would choose not to make currently existing scientific knowledge concerning the presence of carcinogenic POPs in the animal fat portion of the US food supply known to the American public.  The US government still lags far behind the scientific and activist communities and does not deserve the respect of Americans due to its continuing failure to use scientific knowledge to prevent cancer.  The President's Cancer Panel should consider the fact that it too is failing to fully inform the public about highly significant parts of the cancer causation problem.

Donald L. Hassig, Director

Cancer Action NY

Cancer Action Network

315.262.2456

www.canceractionny.org

Media Advisory

10/28/09

For Immediate Release

Cancer Action NY

Cancer Action Network

Donald L. Hassig, Director

315.262.2456

____________________________________________________________________________

ACS Falls Far Short of Science Based Cancer Prevention

The recently published report by the American Cancer Society (ACS) on the subject of pollutant carcinogens is far from a science based, weight of the evidence report on this subject matter. If it was such a report, then the following two statements (red text below) would not be found in the report. (All text within quotation marks was taken from an article By Nancy Walsh, Contributing Writer, MedPage Today

Published: October 28, 2009

Considering the first of these statements (found in red below), it is unwise to wait until "a substantial impact on cancer risk in human populations" has been demonstrated before educating the public concerning the cancer risk imposed by a particular exposure to a pollutant carcinogen. The triggering moment for public education on pollutant carcinogen exposure reduction/avoidance should come as soon as the weight of the scientific evidence has shown that the particular pollutant exposure imposes significant cancer risk in humans or animals. The ACS protocol leaves the public in a situation of being unknowingly exposed to known and suspected pollutant carcinogens.

""The ACS's prevention activities take many forms, but are primarily focused on modifiable risk factors that have been demonstrated to have a substantial impact on cancer risk in human populations," Elizabeth T.H. Fontham, DrPH, of Louisiana State University in New Orleans, and colleagues wrote in November/December issue of CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians."

The second statement found below in red is false. The US EPA dioxin reassessment provides a quantification of the amount of cancer risk that is imposed by a specific amount of dioxin exposure. Based upon that information it is possible to quantify the number of cancers caused by dioxin exposure in the United States. That number is 200,000 US cancer cases per 70 years.

"They noted that the ACS relies on the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Toxicology Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to identify and classify potentially carcinogenic substances."

"To date, more than 935 agents, processes, and other exposures have been rated as to carcinogenicity, including 108 that have been categorized as "carcinogenic to humans."

However, current systems of identification and classification are limited and do not provide quantitative risk assessments and overall estimates of disease burden in the population, the authors wrote."

"To that end, the ACS is supporting efforts to improve toxicity testing and screening of chemicals, a process that began in the 1960s, when its epidemiologists collaborated on research linking asbestos to lung cancer and mesothelioma."

Cancer Action NY educates the public on the subject of know and suspected human pollutant carcinogen exposure reduction/avoidance. We are currently focusing this outreach on dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, as well as exhaust pollutant carcinogens, including: benzene, formaldehyde and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). We advocate for government action that would do the same. Government continues to refuse to do this as does ACS because of the money. The big money will not allow either government health agencies or ACS to tell people to stop eating animal fat containing foods, including: dairy products, meats and eggs because these foods are contaminated with dioxins, dioxin-like compounds and other persistent hydrocarbon pollutants, among these, bisphenol-A, PBDEs, PAHs and numerous lipophilic pesticides, all of which have been found in scientific studies published in the peer reviewed literature to be either known or suspected human carcinogens.

Donald L. Hassig, Director

Cancer Action NY

Cancer Action Network

315.262.2456

www.canceractionny.org

Elise,

CHE is helping government and industry create the illusion that the public is being protected against pollutant exposure in a significant and science-based way. You are our enemies. We will battle against you and your kind as we continue to battle against the bad corporate kings that you serve.

joyous in Nature,

Don Hassig

Donald L. Hassig, Director

Cancer Action NY

Cancer Action Network

315.262.2456

www.canceractionny.org

Hi Don:

Thanks for your request to join CHE Cancer Working Group. Very occasionally, we have to deny a request to join or rejoin CHE. One reason we do this is when a number of CHE partners express concern about an individual’s postings to a listserv--postings that do not adhere to CHE’s commitment to science and civility. Given other CHE members have found your postings repeatedly disruptive and inappropriate, we cannot grant your request. We certainly wish you well in advancing your commitment to health and the environment and hope you find other groups with which you can engage on these issues.

Sincerely,

Elise

--

Elise Miller, MEd

Director

Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE)

1646 Dow Road

Freeland, WA 98249

(phone) 360-331-7989

(fax) 360-331-7908

elise@healthandenvironment.org

www.healthandenvironment.org

Hi Erika,

I would like to join the CHE Cancer WG. Please make arrangements for this to be transacted. Who is the current lead on this WG?

joyous in Nature,

Don Hassig

Michael,

I must conclude that the CHE Breast Cancer WG is moderated by an individual who does not seek the protection of the public health regardless of the consequences. 

joyous in Nature,

Don Hassig

Cancer Action NY

Don:

I regret we can't flip back and forth this way.

Also, this list is too comprehensive for our format.

I wish you well exploring these important questions.

Michael Lerner

Hi Michael,

I would like to temporarily rejoin the Breast Cancer WG for the purpose of initiating a discussion of the matter of dioxin exposure breast cancer risk and public education on dioxin exposure reduction.

The following questions constitute a basis for the discussion.

1. How are Americans exposed to dioxins and dioxin-like compounds?

2. How much dioxin are Americans exposed to?

3. What quantity of cancer risk is imposed by dioxin exposure?

4. What is the state of knowledge regarding dioxin as a breast carcinogen?

5. How many cancer cases are caused by dioxin exposure in the USA?

6. What steps can be taken to reduce dioxin exposure?

7. Why are the state health departments and the federal public health agencies, including the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention and the Public Health Service silent on the matter of dioxin exposure reduction that involves reduced consumption of commercially produced foods which contain animal fat?

8. What is the position of the CHE Breast Cancer WG regarding the use of dioxin contaminated animal fat in the production of food animal feeds?

joyous in Nature,

Don Hassig

Donald L. Hassig, Director

Cancer Action NY

Cancer Action Network

315.262.2456

www.canceractionny.org

Jean,

Why should this WG not be one of the forums for debating the failure of government to use scientific information as a basis for prevention education in order to fulfill the mandate that government operates under that being the mandate to protect the public health? There is something wrong with your heart and thinking to want to avoid this issue.

in Nature,

Don Hassig

Donald L. Hassig, Director

Cancer Action NY

I agree that there are other forums for this sort of debate

Jeanne Rizzo

Breast Cancer Fund