Cancer Prevention

From Women and Health Protection (edited)

There are many good recommendations in the Canadian Campaign to Control
Cancer launched last week, but there are also critical omissions; and
the funding of the new campaign by several leading pharmaceutical
companies should raise some immediate red flags.  
Environmental author and cancer prevention activist, Liz Armstrong
says,  "more funding and action are needed on cancers linked to smoking, diets poor in fruits and vegetables, obesity, and over-exposure to sunlight."
 
However, there also needs to be much more focus and action on cancer
hazards over which Canadians personally have no control, such as the
scores of synthetic carcinogens, hormone disruptors and radionuclides
that make their way through the environment, and become an unwanted
'body burden' of toxic substances. "Every Canadian carries such a
burden, from the moment of conception throughout life. With more and
more evidence that childhood and other cancers begin in utero, this
ought to be at the top of the cancer prevention agenda at every level of government."
 
There also needs to be more focus on reducing or eliminating cancer
hazards in our homes, schools and workplaces that are linked to many
common products we use or consume as a matter of course, such as:
o lawn, garden and indoor pesticides
o some pharmaceutical drugs 
o radiation from unnecessary medical X-rays and CAT scans
o hazardous cleaning solvents, paint strippers, dry cleaning chemicals
o some combustible fuels
o plastics and other products that leach hormone disruptors.
 
These larger primary prevention issues, which would not only require
political action but but would be a threat to many corporate interests,
are given scant attention in the Campaign.
 
An additional concern about the new campaign is its main source of
funding, which includes several major pharmaceutical companies, a point
not evident in the full-page ads that ran in key national papers last
week. Anne Rochon Ford of the national working group, Women and Health
Protection, says these companies not only profit from cancer treatments,
but "they also contribute to the toxic burden we all carry by polluting
our air, water and food with agricultural chemicals and other
carcinogenic substances." Ford adds, "Of course we want to see better
control of cancer -- who could argue against that? "But there is both a
real and perceived conflict of interest present when the funders will
profit financially from the success of this campaign."
 
The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE).
spokesperson Dr. Warren Bell says, "Drug companies, like all
corporations, never involve themselves in a project unless it will
enhance their bottom line. Since they're interested in sales, not
prevention, and since they or their subsidiaries produce a panoply of
toxic chemicals, their role in this otherwise admirable venture is
problematic."




 
The campaign must go much further: In order to end the cancer epidemic,
the whole picture is needed, and it needs to be addressed in a very
public, transparent and proactive way.