by Max Beer

On March 1st, the Montreal Gazette published an editorial entitled "Prevention might be the best cure for cancer." The editorial placed major responsibility for the disease on individual behaviours and argued that simply changing bad habits could lead to an enromous reduction in cancer rates: "The idea that an individual or a society can minimize the risks of cancer by making a few lifestyle changes seems almost too good to be true. But the reality is that as many as one-half to two-thirds of various cancers can be prevented…"

From this, it would appear that a healthier lifestyle and regular visits to the doctor are the only necessary steps to be taken to make cancer a disease that will touch the lives of very few: "Combined with other recent findings that early detection can lead to a 90 percent cure rate, this points the way to a new approach to the disease. There are implications for public health policy but also, more importantly perhaps, for individuals."

Problem solved.
Of course not everyone agreed. Gerald Batist, Chair of the Department of Oncology at McGill University, called the editorial "both confusing and potentially risky." The goal should be to find that all elusive cure, the magic bullet. In his commentary, Batist stated that the Gazette editorial " … too easily dismisses the tremendous progress we have made in curing cancer, and the value of maintaining that as a goal, as does U.S. President Barack Obama." Invoking the name of the popular American President certainly appears to add credence to Batist's argument, but this search for the cure began with Nixon's "War on Cancer" in the 1970s, and each successive president has promised that this war would be won during his presidency. While there have been great success stories, after nearly forty years and billions of dollars, cancer rates have risen and we still rely on the same treatments: surgery, radiation and chemotherapy – or "slash, burn and poison."

In the editorial and in two letters to the editor that followed, the environment was never mentioned. It was strange to see the word "prevention" bandied about without any thought of our surroundings.

My own letter to the editor appeared on March 11th. I stressed the fact that, while there have been scientific breakthroughs, in general cancer rates have increased. Early detection "... still means you get the disease, and in greater numbers. From the 1950s to the 1990s, breast cancer rates increased about 60 percent; prostate cancer about 200 percent, and testicular cancer rates for men ages 28 to 35 have gone up 300 percent." I ended the letter by pointing out that increasing the cure rate is not prevention. "Being content with lower mortality rates suggests that we accept the fact that cancer has to happen, and happen more frequently. Prevention should mean that we look at factors that cause the disease and focus on removing as many environmental poisons as possible."