|
Pam’s Commentary
February 12th, 2005
Re: Report Finds Half of Breast Cancer Causes May Be
Environmental (story below)
My intention in writing commentaries about current news
stories is to share my opinions about how we are being
manipulated by the media and science. This story clearly
demonstrates how we are being distracted.
I have no doubt that environmental factors contribute to
diseases such as cancer, however when I read stories
about research linking, for example, chemicals to breast
cancer, I wonder why most reports don’t also mention any
links between overall diet and cancer. For example, did
they consider how much coffee individual subjects drank
and how that may have impacted their health? Did they
factor in the emotional stress of the subjects? How much
sugar did they consume? How much processed food did they
eat? Were they on the risky low-fat diet? Did they eat
soy (which we now know to be problematic)?
Also, consider this - Even with the growing awareness
about toxic chemicals, I see no evidence that their use
is being reduced or eliminated. It is up to each
individual to do their utmost to change their own
environment in order to reduce or eliminate their own
exposure to toxic chemicals.
If we continue to play this blame game, we may cloud out
the real reasons why we are so sick today. Yes, I agree
that synthetic chemicals are a problem, but so is excess
coffee consumption, so is excess alcohol consumption, so
are processed foods and sugar, so are fad diets and so
on.
If we expect to get well, we need to reduce our exposure
to synthetic chemicals, and introduce whole organic
foods which build (rather than sabotage) our health.
These foods include: raw dairy products (from pastured
cows), fermented foods and drinks, animal meat from wild
or pastured animals, fruits and vegetables. (For more
information, be sure to read my interview with Sally
Fallon in the archives.)
Don’t forget to exercise and seek out stress reducing
techniques which appeal to you.
http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/pp.asp?c=kwKXLdPaE&b=1370305
Report Finds Half of
Breast Cancer Causes May Be Environmental
U.S. Women’s Lifetime
Risk for Breast Cancer
Has Nearly Tripled since 1964
SAN FRANCISCO — Women in the United States still have
a high risk of breast cancer even if they have no
genetic predisposition or other commonly-accepted risk
factors for the disease, according to a report released
today.
“State of the Evidence 2006: What Is the Connection
Between the Environment and Breast Cancer?” reports that
as many as 50 percent of breast cancer cases remain
unexplained by either genetics or lifestyle factors,
such as a woman’s age at her first full-term pregnancy
or alcohol consumption.
Instead, the report says, “compelling scientific
evidence points to some of the 100,000 synthetic
chemicals in use today as contributing to the
development of breast cancer, either by altering hormone
function or gene expression.” The report also identifies
radiation exposure, such as that from X-rays and CT
scans, as the “longest-established environmental cause
of breast cancer.”
“State of the Evidence 2006,” which reviews and
analyzes nearly 350 scientific studies on environmental
links to breast cancer, was jointly published by two San
Francisco-based organizations, the Breast Cancer Fund
and Breast Cancer Action. The report was peer-reviewed
by leading scientists at the University of Pittsburgh
Cancer Institute, Tufts University School of Medicine,
Columbia University and other research institutions.
This is the fourth edition of “State of the
Evidence;” the 2006 edition reports findings from more
than 46 new studies published during 2004 and 2005.
In 2005, breast cancer was expected to kill more than
40,000 women in the United States—one death every 13
minutes—and more than 410,000 women worldwide. U.S.
women now have a one in seven chance of being diagnosed
with breast cancer during their lifetimes, a risk that
has nearly tripled in the past four decades.
“Considerable resources are spent each year to
encourage women to make changes in their personal lives
that might reduce the risk of breast cancer,” said
Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., executive director of the Breast
Cancer Fund. “But many factors that contribute to the
disease lie far beyond a woman’s personal control and
can only be addressed by a revolution in thinking on the
parts of government and the private sector.”
“This report adds to the compelling evidence that the
chemicals we’re exposed to in our daily lives are making
us sick,” said Lisa Wanzor, acting executive director of
Breast Cancer Action. “Women living with and at risk for
breast cancer need public policies that will put our
health first and protect us from exposures to toxic
chemicals.”
Among the research findings reported in the 2006
edition:
• Genetic susceptibility makes only a “small to
moderate contribution” to the incidence of breast
cancer, according to a re-analysis of a large
Scandinavian study originally published in 2000;
• An interdisciplinary analysis of the history of
hormone replacement therapy revealed that scientists
were aware of its breast cancer risk as early as the
1930s. The expert analysts asked why, for decades since
the 1960s, millions of women were prescribed powerful
pharmaceutical agents known to be carcinogenic;
• Women living within one mile of hazardous waste
sites containing common herbicides and pesticides such
as 2,4-D and chlordane had an increased risk of breast
cancer, a study conducted on Long Island, N.Y., found.
Researchers working in Iowa and North Carolina also
found an increased risk of breast cancer among the wives
of farmers who used certain chlorinated pesticides and
among those living closest to areas of pesticide
application. In California, certain pesticides and
herbicides were associated with increased risk of breast
cancer in Latina agricultural workers;
• There is no safe dose of ionizing radiation. Even
the smallest dose has the potential to cause an
increased cancer risk in humans, according to a report
from the National Research Council; and
• Chemicals called phthalates, which are ubiquitous
in personal care products, were shown to significantly
increase cell proliferation in human breast cancer
cells. Scientists also found that certain phthalates
inhibited the effectiveness of tamoxifen, one of the
most widely prescribed breast cancer treatments, in
killing MCF-7 breast cancer cells.
The new report offers a 10-point plan to reduce the
risk of breast cancer and ultimately end the epidemic.
Among those recommendations:
• Establish environmental health tracking programs to
monitor toxic exposures at state and federal levels;
• Protect workers from hazardous exposures;
• Hold corporations accountable for hazardous
practices and offer local, state and federal incentives
for clean, green practices; and
• Create a comprehensive chemicals policy based on
the precautionary principle, which would obligate
producers of chemical and radiological products to
assess the health, safety and environmental impacts of
their products before introducing them or releasing
them.
# # #
|
