Broader environment neglected in cancer cure.
New York Times article is an example of another lost chance to explore environmental exposures that cause cancer at key development periods.
An April 24th The New York Times article recounts the achievements of the War on Cancer, as proclaimed by President Nixon in 1971. The results are disappointing thus far. Gina Kolata correctly points out the many times the public has been promised that, by a certain year, scientists will deliver a cure for cancer. Those dates passed without any fanfare, and more importantly, without accountability for the broken promises.
After reminding us of the hundreds of billions of dollars invested by private companies and foundations, state and federal governments, Ms Kolata makes the most important point: “Yet the death rate for cancer, adjusted for the size and age of the population, dropped only 5 percent from 1950 to 2005”. This is stunning but not surprising.
What is surprising is that Ms Kolata did not mention the other stunning fact: the steady increase in newly diagnosed cancers. For instance, the incidence of breast cancer increased 18 percent from 1975-2003; prostate cancer incidence went up 85 percent in the same period. These numbers make the 5 percent decrease in death rate for cancer look even worse.
Interestingly, Ms Kolata mentions cancer prevention. This is a welcome sign. She writes that there is “perception” that cancer is curable and preventable, especially if “you eat right and exercise”.
However, she associates cancer prevention with personal lifestyles. She never delves into the increasingly mounting scientific evidence that links environmental exposures to cancer.
Compelling epidemiological and experimental data show that exposure during critical fetal and puberty development to some environmental toxicants – such as chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system – correlates with the onset of cancer later in life. Think DES, the synthetic estrogen prescribed to pregnant women to reduce the risk of miscarriages. Its consequences on the daughter’s health: vaginal cancer, increased risk of breast cancer, etc.
For many decades, it has been easy to blame our genes and our lifestyle for the fate of our health. It is time to seriously challenge the notion that cancer is a genetic disease that we are “destined” to get. It is time to consider broader environmental, and therefore preventable, causes of cancer. After all, more than 90 percent of people diagnosed don't have strong family history of cancer – like Phyllis Kutt, the breast cancer patient interviewed by Ms Kolata.
But what links us all is that we were, and continue to be, exposed to many environmental toxicants.
