To Those Who Are Concerned About the American Cancer Epidemic,

The President's Cancer Panel (PCP) is a US federal government advisory

board that oversees the United States' National Cancer Program. ?It

was established by the National Cancer Act of 1971. ?In the Panel's

most recent report, "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can

Do Now", dated April 2010, the Cancer Panel set before the public

expert testimony based information on pollutant exposure cancer

causation. ?The Panel promulgated the position that widespread

failures have taken place throughout the National Cancer Program,

these being failures to use existing scientific knowledge on the

subject of pollutant exposure cancer outcome for the purpose of

protecting public health.

This position is shared by many cancer prevention and environmental

organizations. ?It is the role of the PCP to provide oversight. ?What

has the PCP observed in the course of its oversight of the National

Cancer Program that led it to take the above stated position? ?What

are the details of what it has observed? ?What are the names of the

people and the government agencies that are failing to use existing

scientific knowledge about pollutant exposure cancer outcome to

prevent cancer?

Cancer Action NY began seeking the opportunity to conduct an on the

record, in-voice interview with Dr. Lasalle Leffall, co-chair of the

PCP, shortly after the report became available in early May 2010. ?No

response was given to the questions set forth below until March 2011.

The answers are inadequate. ?It is clear that the Panel has

encountered push back that has chilled its passion for change. ?A

major source of push back has been the American Cancer Society, an

organization that was created with chemical industry money to serve as

an obstacle to progress toward protection of the environment and

public health from cancer risk imposed by pollutant carcinogens.

I asked the PCP to provide insights from its experiences overseeing

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in particular the

Division of Cancer Prevention and Control and the National Center for

Environmental Health. ?The PCP's answer to that question was this.

"The President's Cancer Panel is a federal advisory committee

appointed by the President. ?The Panel has no knowledge regarding the

operations of the CDC." ?How can the PCP be providing oversight of the

National Cancer Program and yet state that it has no knowledge of the

CDC, ?It is the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control within CDCP

that conducts the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program. I

find it shocking that the PCP has no knowledge of the CDC. ?The PCP is

certainly not providing the quality of oversight that I consider to be

necessary to serve as a competent advisor of the President of the

United States. ?In Cancer Action NY's oversight of the National Cancer

Program, we have experienced an outrageous amount of resistance to the

use of existing scientific knowledge for the purpose of preventing

cancers caused by exposure to pollutant carcinogens. ?This resistance

takes place predominantly in the form of refusal to enter into any

substantive discussion on the subjects of pollutant carcinogen

exposure cancer risk and public education concerning exposure

reduction.

I am providing a response letter from PCP and the answers that the PCP

has given to our questions below.

joyous in Nature,

Donald L. Hassig

______________________________________________________________________

March 24, 2011

Donald L. Hassig, Director

Cancer Action NY

Colton, NY USA 13625

By Email to

Dear Mr. Hassig,

Thank you for your sustained interest in the work of the President's

Cancer Panel, specifically the 2008-2009 report, Reducing

Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now. ?As you are aware, the

President's Cancer Panel is a three-person advisory committee tasked

with reviewing the National Cancer Program. The Panel accomplishes its

mission by selecting a specific topic related to the entirety of the

National Cancer Program and holding a series of meetings on that

topic. The topic changes from year to year. The topic of the 2008-2009

series was on environmental carcinogens. The report summarizing the

Panel's findings, conclusions and recommendations was released in

April 2010. The Panel is no longer soliciting testimony on the topic

of environmental carcinogens nor are the Panel members involved in

media outreach on the report.

Allow me to address your concern about the lack of specific coverage

of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the report. The Panel did

not intend for the 2008-2009 report to address every environmental

hazard to which Americans are exposed, as there are far too many to

enumerate in a single report. By highlighting some of the

environmental carcinogens present in our environment, they could

increase awareness of the significant impact these and other

environmental exposures have on cancer risk. Though the Panel did not

address POPs directly, they hope that their recommendations to shift

environmental policy to a precautionary, rather than reactionary

approach; to develop a more integrated, coordinated, and transparent

system for promulgation and enforcement of environmental policy; and

to develop and disseminate public health messages to raise awareness

of environmental cancer risks and encourage people to reduce or

eliminate exposure whenever possible will prevent harmful exposure to

POPs and many other environmental carcinogens, both those that were

and those that were not included in the PCP 2008-2009 report.

In addition, I am aware that you have contacted NCI's Office of

Advocacy Relations and characterized the PCP report ?as advocating for

an increased role for the NCI "in the use of currently existing

scientific knowledge on the subject of pollutant carcinogen exposure

cancer outcome for the purpose of empowering behavior changes among

the general public that will result in cancer risk reduction." ?I

would like to clarify this characterization of the PCP report. The

Panel recommends that epidemiologic and hazard assessment research

must be continued and strengthened in areas where the evidence is

unclear. As part of the National Institutes of Health, NCI would be

expected to play a role in advancing the field of exposure assessment.

I have copied your questions and our answers below and I have attached

them as a word document. I apologize for the delayed response.

I hope that you find these responses informative. As we have concluded

the 2008-2009 series and are no longer soliciting testimony or media

engagements, this is the extent of the information we are able to

provide to you. Should you have any further questions regarding NCI or

environmental carcinogens, please contact the NCI Office of Advocacy

Relations. ?Their website is advocacy.cancer.gov.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Burt, MPH

Special Assistant

President's Cancer Panel

p: 301.594.4025

f: ?301.435.1832

1. How was the decision made to produce the Cancer Panel's report on

pollution and cancer?

* ? ? ? The President's Cancer Panel is a federal advisory committee

appointed by the President. ?It was established in 1971 with the

passage of the National Cancer Act. ?The Panel is charged with

monitoring the development and execution of the activities of the

National Cancer Program.

* ? ? ? Each year, the Panel holds at least four public meetings to

solicit input from a variety of stakeholders and submits an annual

report to the President of the United States with recommendations

focused on improving the National Cancer Program. ?The theme of the

report changes from year to year.

* ? ? ? ?The 2008-2009 report focused on the theme of Environmental

Factors in Cancer.

2. Tell us about the expert testimony received by your panel. ?What

types of chemicals and carcinogenic agents were covered in this

information gathering phase of the Panel's work?

Meeting minutes and summaries can be found on the Panels' website at

this link - http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcpmeetings.htm

3. Carcinogenic persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are an important

group of pollutant carcinogens. ?Some of the POPs are pesticides,

others are industrial chemicals. ?The Cancer Panel report included a

section on pesticides and a section on occupational exposure to

industrial chemicals. ?However, there was no mention of POPs as a

major group of carcinogenic chemicals. ?Dioxins, a group of

extensively studied carcinogenic POPs, were not mentioned in the

Cancer Panel report. ?Was a decision made not to address dioxin

exposure cancer risk? ?If such a decision was made, please describe

the basis for that decision.

The report was based on the testimony provided by the expert presenters.

4. Pollutant carcinogen exposure reduction education is the most

powerful use of science for the prevention of cancer. ?Cancer Action

NY advocates for such educational outreach by government at the

federal, state and county levels. ?I would like to discuss a recent

teleconference we conducted on the subject of carcinogenic POPs in the

US food supply and strategies to decrease exposure.

The Panel has concluded its series focused on environmental

carcinogens and is no longer soliciting testimony with regards to this

topic.

5. What are the cancer risk reduction recommendations of the Cancer

Panel report?

The Panel's recommendations to individuals can be found here

http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf

6. Let's discuss some experiences that I have had advocating for

pollutant carcinogen exposure reduction education by the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP). ?The Division of Cancer

Prevention and Control (DCPC) is a part of the CDCP that clearly bears

a responsibility for educating Americans concerning pollutant

carcinogen exposure reduction. ?The National Center for Environmental

Health is another CDCP institution with pollutant carcinogen exposure

reduction education responsibilities. ?Neither entity conducts any

educational outreach on carcinogenic POPs exposure reduction. ?I have

made repeated requests for an explanation of why this is the case at

the DCPC. ?No answer has been provided. ?I have been informed by Dr.

Thomas Frieden, Director of the CDCP, that the National Center for

Environmental Health does not have any scientific experts with

knowledge on the subject of POPs exposure cancer risk. ?The Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is a sister agency to

the National Center for Environmental Health. ?ATSDR employs Dr.

Hannah Pohl, who possesses expert knowledge of dioxin exposure cancer

risk. ?I have concluded that the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention are controlled by corporate interests in the chemicals,

manufacturing and food sectors of the economy to the extent that

little or no good intention exists in that federal government health

entity for using science to prevent cancer. ?Do you have any knowledge

concerning the operations of the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention that would help to make clear the reasons why I have

encountered such a lack of pollutant carcinogen exposure reduction

educational outreach at the CDCP?

The President's Cancer Panel is a federal advisory committee appointed

by the President. ?The Panel has no knowledge regarding the operations

of the CDC.

--

Donald L. Hassig, Director

Cancer Action NY

Cancer Action Network

P O Box 340

Colton, NY USA 13625

315.262.2456

www.canceractionny.org

?

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