skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Keystone XL Pipeline
Clean Energy Successes
Defending the Clean Air Act

Sarah Janssen’s Blog

To Win the War on Cancer - we need to get serious about chemical regulation

Sarah Janssen

Posted May 6, 2010 in Health and the Environment

Tags:
, , , , , , , ,
Share | | |

Today the President's Cancer Panel issued a ground-breaking report to President Obama focusing on the role of the environment in cancer. The Panel, appointed by the President, is charged to give an annual update on the status of the National Cancer Program, also known as the "War on Cancer".

This year's report is a sea change on the "War on Cancer" not only because of the strong and wide-reaching recommendations that it makes, but it marks the first time the Panel has focused on the role of environmental chemical exposures in cancer in their nearly 40 year history. The report makes many critical statements about the current federal cancer research agenda which "has been limited by low priority and inadequate funding" in studying the role of chemicals in causing cancer, especially when those exposures occur during development. The report also chastises federal government agencies for "not fulfilling their responsibilities to protect public health" by performing the necessary regulatory functions to limit exposure to known or suspected carcinogens, such as asbestos, formaldehyde and trichloroethylene. The report also highlighted the need for reform of federal chemical policy and stronger regulation of chemicals by shifting the burden of proof from the government to the manufacturers with a focus on precaution and prevention. Sound familiar?

Many of the policy recommendations issued by the President’s Cancer Panel align with principles of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, of which NRDC is a founding member.

Some of the Panels recommendations include:

  • stronger regulation of environmental contaminants with a shift in the burden of proof for chemical safety to chemical manufacturers,
  • full disclosure knowledge about environmental cancer risks
  • support for "green chemistry" and the development of safer chemicals,
  • Special consideration for vulnerable populations - including fetuses, infants, children, workers and people living in toxic "hotspots" where high levels of contamination exist.

Last month, both the U.S. House and Senate unveiled legislation to overhaul the nation’s outdated chemical law, the Toxic Substances Control Act.  That law has been widely criticized for preventing EPA from regulating even the small group of known human carcinogens, while also failing to keep pace with more recent science. Though the bills differ, each would require chemicals to be assessed for safety as a condition of remaining on the market. My colleague, Gina Solomon has recently posted a blog abou this newly introduced legislation and NRDC has a website where you can keep updated on the progress of this legislation.

In the meantime, the Panel has also outlined actions that inviduals can take to reduce their risk of cancer from environmental exposures. I've summarized some of them here but you can read their full recommendations starting on  page xix of the report.

  1. Remove shoes before entering the home.
  2. Filter your home tap water over using bottled water
  3. Store and carry water in a stainless steel, glass or BPA-free container.
  4. Microwave food and beverages in ceramic or glass instead of plastic
  5. Eat organic produce and meats to reduce exposure to pesticides. Avoid consuming processed, charred or well-done meats.
  6. Reduce or stop using landscaping pesticides and fertilizers
  7. Check home radon levels.
  8. Become an active voice in your community by letting your policymakers know you support chemical policy reform.
Share | | |

Comments

NyscofMay 6 2010 05:31 PM

11 Environmental Protection Agency employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals called for a moratorium on the addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies across the country, and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people.

People need to stop groaning when they hear the word fluoride. People Opposed to Fluoridation were probably the first environmentalists who were, are still are, put-down, denigrated and marginalized by people who should know better.

Fluoride is not a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. Modern science shows that ingesting this chemical does not reduce tooth decay. Fluoride as a drug hardens tooth enamel from topical application, alone.

The fluoride chemicals that are added into water supplies are by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry which are oddly regulated by a private company called NSF International which also represents the industries that produce these chemicals.

The EPA out-sourced this responsibility in the 1980's

In. February 2008, NSF international reported that they only tested 245 fluoridation chemicals (there are 50,000 public water suppliers) sampled from 2000 to 2006 and found 2% had detectable levels of lead and 43% had detectable levels of arsenic. Since the EPA set the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of fluoride and arsenic at zero, I don't understand why these tainted fluoridation chemicals are allowed into public water supplies. No one entity seems to be in charge. I've questioned EPA, CDC and NSF International. No one has the answer.

Other toxins allowed in the fluoridation chemicals are antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, selenium, and thallium. See:
http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet.pdf

People might be surprised to learn that fluoridation chemicals (silicofluorides) have never been safety tested in humans or animals.

Over 2,750 professionals (including over 260 dentists) urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted, citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

nyscofMay 7 2010 10:28 AM

Correction to my previous response

Since the EPA set the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of LEAD (not fluoride) and arsenic at zero, I don't understand why these tainted fluoridation chemicals are allowed into public water supplies.

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: Sarah Janssen’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In