Breast Cancer Link to Environment Goes Mainstream

By Molly M. Ginty

WeNews correspondent

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Suspicions that breast cancer could be caused by environmental pollution were once considered politically fringe. But in recent weeks, U.S. lawmakers, a presidential panel and the influential Susan G. Komen for the Cure have all signed on.

Page 2 of 2

"This report is a breakthrough because of its source--and because it's the first government document to ever summarize these issues clearly and in one place," said Janice Barlow, director of Zero Breast Cancer, an advocacy group in San Raphael, Calif.

The Safe Chemicals Act of 2010--introduced April 15 in the Senate by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and in the House by Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bobby Rush, D-Ill.--is another sign of environmental health worries gaining mainstream attention.

This legislation would revamp the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and would ensure, in Lautenberg's words, that "those who make chemicals be responsible for testing them before they are released."

Under current policy, the Environmental Protection Agency can call for safety testing only after evidence surfaces to indicate that a chemical is dangerous. As a result, the agency has only been able to require testing for 200 of the 80,000 chemicals registered in its database.

Five Carcinogens Banned

To date, the Environmental Protection Agency has been able to ban five carcinogens: asbestos (used as insulation); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs, used in electrical transformers); hexavalent chromium (a paint additive); dioxins (byproducts of chemical manufacturing); and halogenated chlorofluoroalkanes (used in aerosol cosmetics).

To lobby for the Safe Chemicals Act, currently being reviewed by congressional committees, the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization in Washington, has created an online petition that the bill's supporters can send to their legislators. The Senate and House could vote on the proposed law later this year.

"This act is revolutionary because it's built on the precautionary principle, which holds that you prove chemicals are safe before you introduce them," said Barbara Brenner, executive director of the San Francisco-based Breast Cancer Action. "Growing interest in that principle means legislation like this finally has a chance to move forward."

Grassroots activists say such legislation could have a wide impact. Forty-one percent of Americans will develop cancer at some point in their lives, according to the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, Mass.

Six percent of all cancer deaths are linked to environmental factors, estimates the Atlanta-based American Cancer Society. Grassroots groups have long pointed to evidence, however, that indicates the true number is much higher.

One Department of Health and Human Services study, for instance, estimates that 70 percent of breast cancer cases are linked to environmental exposures.

Report Pinpoints Risk Factors

The President's Cancer Panel report takes aim at environmental risk factors in manufacturing, agriculture, medical sources, the military and modern lifestyles.

These include benzene (in petroleum products, such as the oil currently leaking into the Gulf of Mexico); chromium trioxide (an ingredient used in pesticides); increased medical testing (which is boosting Americans' exposure to radiation); the 900 Superfund sites (areas identified by the federal government as "the nation's worst uncontrolled hazardous waste sites"); and bisphenol-A (a plastic ingredient found in throw-away bottles).

The 240-page report recommends reducing exposure to carcinogens during pregnancy (which can impair fetal development); studying vulnerable populations (such as low-income residents of polluted communities); teaching Americans to protect themselves from cancer by taking practical steps (such as microwaving food in glass containers instead of plastic ones); and creating a stronger screening system that ensures chemicals are proven safe before they are put on the market.

If the Safe Chemicals Act passes, that last recommendation--which health advocates have long said is a crucial starting point--will be met, potentially paving the way for future reforms.

Molly M. Ginty (http://mollymaureenginty.wordpress.com) is a freelance writer based in New York City.

Would you like to Comment but not sure how? Visit our help page at http://www.womensenews.org/help-making-comments-womens-enews-stories.

For more information:

"Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk," President's Cancer Panel:
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf

Petition Supporting the Safe Chemicals Act, Environmental Working Group:
http://action.ewg.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1888

Note: Women's eNews is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites and the contents of site the link points to may change.

DONATE

2 COMMENTS | Login or Sign Up to post comments

I personally am careful of the type of milk, I drink. Choosing milk that states no pesticides, hormones or antibiotics were given to the cows, is a start! There are many brands out there. Also I peel fruits or vegetables that have thin skin, before consuming them. Especially vegetables that are grown near the ground, where usually there is pesticides. Sometimes if money allows, I buy organic produce.

Submitted by Janet (2 years ago)

I'm delighted that radiation is finally on the list of warned toxins. The article mentions one source of radiation poisoning. There are more, and worse.
The second source, is that radioactive substances all have half-lives that continue from a few minutes to millions of years. Some of the later half lives of radiation used in diagnosis or treatment turn from a helpful substance to one that will cause a cancer in that person's body, commonly, about 14 years later. This is difficult to prove, thus all the scientists over the years who have warned about this effect (since 1960"s), have been basically unheeded.
A third source of radiation poisoning is a cumulative effect from radiation in many products that we consider normal to our lives. Most electronic goods contain some radioactive substance. Thus, anything that is not mechanical in how you use it, that requires a computer-style of function, may contain radioactive substances.
A fourth source of radiation poisoning is nuclear power stations' waste effluent in the air and water and soil around the reactors. In the USA, 2008, there were, 104 nuclear reactor sites. Everyone should know whether she lives within a 100 miles of a nuclear reactor. some nations have good safety regulations for these, and others may not. Regulations may not have been carefully monitored in practice. Old reactors have higher risk for leaks and accidents; this is not a small concern, it is real, and could be much worse than the gulf oil problem at present.
Here is the map of nuclear reactor locations in the USA: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html
Here, for international readers, is the site for all known nuclear reactors in the world:
http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/world_map.php