The New CigaretteA new book argues that chemical waste is as much to blame for cancer as smoking.
Posted Monday, Sept. 24, 2007, at 7:20 AM ET
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponDavis ultimately argues that in their doubt-sowing public-relations efforts, the chemical industry and others have cleverly manipulated the science of epidemiology, the study of health and disease among populations. Epidemiologists would be the first to admit that it is truly difficult to establish definitive proof that a given hazard causes a given cancer. But scientists and spokespeople for the chemical industries have gone further, using epidemiology's penchant for caveat to attempt to nullify a lot of very convincing data. Those who have accepted money from industry to weigh in have even included the heroes of epidemiology, such as Richard Doll, who had earlier been one of the first investigators to prove the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Doll, Davis writes, was a "highly paid consultant" for Monsanto and Dow Chemical and the Chemical Manufacturers Association. She believes he wrote reports that, among other things, minimized the connection of vinyl chloride to certain brain and liver cancers.
But the subterfuge of industry isn't the only barrier to shifting the war on cancer from simply treatment to prevention and treatment. Also powerful is the way in which most Americans respond to a diagnosis of cancer. As Davis remarks about cancer patients, "Nothing can match the singular devotion that comes to those who are fighting for their own lives or those of family members." My experience as a clinician caring for cancer patients corroborates this point as well as its corollary: Most cancer patients are not especially concerned about why they developed cancer. While many of them become activists, participating in walkathons and races to raise money, relatively few see their cancer as a reason to man the barricades against toxic waste. They look forward, to a cure, not backward, to what might have prevented them from getting sick in the first place. If only a small percentage of Americans are environmental activists, why should cancer patients be any different?
There is one additional barrier to consider. Once the perfidy of the cigarette industry was revealed, the danger of smoking became indisputable: Cigarettes cause lung cancer. But in the case of chemical hazards, there are many hazards, many different industries, and many different cancers that can result. In one of her chapters, aptly titled "No Safe Place," Davis lists a variety of hazards and related health complications, including contaminated water, poisoned fish, toxic fumes, miscarriages, and congenital malformations. The litany is frankly overwhelming. And when one adds in routine X-rays, cell phones, aspartame, and hot dogs as conceivable causes of cancer, just where does one begin? Is everything toxic?
And yet Davis may be catching the right wave at the right time. Despite all the obstacles, growing numbers of cancer activists and interested citizens seem to be grasping her main point: By creating doubt about cancer causation, industry perpetually prevents reform and thus allows more cancer to emerge. Scientists and funding agencies are finally beginning to focus on preventing cancer—not just blasting it away with better and better medications. For example, according to its Web site, the National Cancer Institute now "supports a large research portfolio which identifies environmental risk factors for breast cancer."
Davis herself imagines some version of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where activists, scientists, and industry can come together, admit past mistakes, and then launch a mass cleanup. This is a nice thought. But again, the cigarette example is instructive. True change did not occur until incriminating documents surfaced, which the plaintiffs' lawyers used to make the tobacco industry admit past wrongdoings and pay substantial penalties. Davis' book is a good start, but it does not provide nearly enough of a punch to bring the chemical industry to its knees.
Saletan: House Democrats Traded Abortion Rights for a Health Reform Bill
Most Fast Food Restaurants Thrived During the Recession. Not Arby's.
Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism? Two Historians Say No.
Dear Farhad: How Does Facebook Know I'm Gay?
Are Doctors Allowed To Say They're Sorry?
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism
Remarks from the Fray:
The tobacco industry turned out to be a nice target for trial lawyers looking to get rich and politicians looking for a soft target on which to make their names.
So, the destruction of a legal industry became a sort of societal goal; free speech was violated in all sorts of ways by forcing the tobacco companies to pay for advertisements against their products.
Now for the chemical industry, many service industries, the energy industry, all sorts of resource extraction industries...?
This would not be a just or meritorious goal, it would not truly benefit society even if it reduced cancer rates - people will never live forever, as far as we can tell; they will die of something, and increasing longevity with quality of life is a fine and noble goal, but at a certain point it ends up being a trade-off of protecting rich old people at the cost of everybody else.
What might we benefit from most? A fight against diseases of the young; exposure to things that causes early onset leukemia, or diabetes. Environmental chemicals that encourage ADD/ADHD, depression, and birth defects.
Cancer is in there. But the goal should be finding ways to reduce exposure, not punish companies for entirely legal and legitimate past practices. Only the lawyers and activists really want that.
--BenK
(To reply, click here.)
It is difficult to believe this is still open to discussion. We have already discussed this matter with, Monsanto, pcb, Niagra Falls, the inability to eat fish caught in United States rivers and lakes, etc.
The real problem here is not the lack of scientific study but the absolute lack of government protection of its citizens and the wholesale feeding of the public to corporations. If there is a problem, this is the problem. This government, supposedly by and for the people, has been protecting corporate interest and leaving the public exposed to corporate predators. The sad part about all of this is that corporate managers breathe the same air, drink the same water and eat the same food as the rest of us. I can only think the managers justify their thinking because they can afford better health care in the event their poor public policy causes them or one of their loved ones to get cancer.
We are our brothers keepers in more ways than one. The failure of the government to monitor chemical waste and insist on pollution clean up is irresponsible, at best.
--keriheb
(To reply, click here.)
In recent years, as celebrities like Sheryl Crow and Melissa Etheridge have detailed their battles with cancer, I have noticed that the only focus on cause relates to food. Both of them have said that they have switched diets, only eat organic, shun chemical preservatives, etc, etc. This is an extremely convenient explanation, because it's one of the few environmental factors over which cancer patients actually have some control. I wondered why they chose to focus on this small thing as a cause, and think I may have the answer: They are old.
I don't mean "old" in the normal pejorative sense. I just mean that if one gets cancer in one's forties (or later), it's much easier to believe that the build up of ever-nebulous "toxins" which may have led to the cancer is controllable by the individual. If however one gets cancer in her early twenties, as I did, cause becomes much more important. Since I had a B-cell lymphoma, the underlying cause was likely a genetic mutation, but something caused that chromosome to express, and to express significantly earlier than it normally does. Diet is unlikely in this case. So what is it? Some virus? The fact that I grew up 30 miles from a nuclear plant? That lingering cloud of carcinogens released on 9/11? Who knows? Not too many people seem to be asking, even in the scientific community.
But most people, if allowed to believe that they may in fact be able to change their lifestyle in an attempt to keep cancer from returning, will look no further. Control is important to everybody, cancer patients in particular, and to cede control of your own body (once again) to toxic chemicals is a heavy psychological burden to bear.
--liz212ny
(To reply, click here.)
(9/27)