Misconceptions about the Causes of Cancer

Lois Swirsky Gold, Thomas H. Slone, Neela B. Manley & Bruce N. Ames
Number 3 in the Risk Controversy Series, The Fraser Institute, 2002

The thrust of this book (or booklet) is evident from the start. The foreword states that, "Some anti-technology groups will insist that a product or technology be proven to pose no risk at all before it is brought to market — this is sometimes called the precautionary principle. This may sound sensible but it is, in fact, an absurd demand ...." It is immediately clear what we're dealing with. Again, before outlining the nine "misconceptions" which are the meat of the book, the position of the Fraser Institute is summarized thus: "The prevention of cancer will come from knowledge obtained from biomedical research, education of the public, and life-style changes made by indivduals." (emphasis mine)

The first misconception is that "cancer rates are soaring." This is rebutted by resort to death rates which are indeed falling. However, the rise in incidence (diagnosed cases) is dismissed as applying only to "older age groups for some cancers" and due to better screening. This despite statistics issued by the Canadian Cancer Society demonstrating that cancer cases continue to rise at a faster pace than population growth.

The eight additional 'misconceptions' are these: that synthetic chemicals at environmental exposure levels are an important cause of human cancer; that reducing pesticide residues is an effective way to prevent diet-related cancer; that human exposures to potential cancer hazards are primarily to synthetic chemicals; that the toxicology of synthetic chemicals is different from that of natural chemicals; that cancer risks to humans can be assessed by standard high-dose animal cancer tests; that synthetic chemicals pose greater carcinogenic risks than natural chemicals; that pesticides and other synthetic chemicals are disrupting hormones; and, finally, that regulation of low, hypothetical risks is effective in advancing public health.

One needs an advanced knowledge of biochemistry to follow the argu-mentation. However, I did note that, aside from citing their own studies over and over again, there was frequent recourse to the study that negated the claims of the Long Island women with breast cancer. This study (Gammon et al) has been strongly criticized for its methodology and for its insistence on measuring individual chemicals rather than looking at the possible effects of combinations.

This book would have been more convincing were it not so completely and adamantly one-sided.

— Janine O'Leary Cobb
 

Ces maladies créées par l'homme
Belpomme, Dominique, in collaboration with Bernard Pascuito
Éditions Albin Michel, Paris, 2004. 378 p.

At long last, a cancer specialist and prestigious researcher, Dominique Belpomme, has confidently declared that governments and industry can no longer deny the links between increased cancer rates and the deterioration of the environment. To ensure his message is heard, Belpomme has published a book entitled Ces maladies créées par l'homme (These man-made diseases), with a subtitle, Comment la dégradation de l'environnement met en péril notre santé (How environmental erosion endangers our health).

Even though written by an oncologist, the book is accessible, well-reasoned, and supported by numerous examples (most from France). The author bases his argument largely on the origins of different cancers before and after industrialization. He says that, in industrialized countries today, most cancers have a physicochemical cause as a result of human activity (air, food and neurosensory pollution; use of fertilizers, pesticides, plastics, heavy metals, etc.). Moreover, cancer is not the only "man-made disease." Male sterility, allergies, congenital malformations and obesity are also part of this sad record of human achievement.

In fact, Dr. Belpomme casts a wide net, perhaps too wide. He is an elo-quent advocate for saving the environment, often citing the Quebec astrophysicist, Hubert Reeves. Belpomme suggests that the Precautionary Principle be extended to areas other than agriculture (where it is already partly in force in France) and, using examples from France and the U.S.A., heartily denounces industry's controlling influence on research. He goes so far as to talk about "money polluting medical research", about research that is more and more oriented toward "drugs for sale", and the "marketing of life" by stem cell and gene therapies.

This French researcher is trying to put us on the right track but we must act quickly because, in his words, "This century must be environmentally conscious or we will cease to exist." An alarming call to action! — Édith Pariseau