Thanks to Nicholas Kristof of the
New York Times (“New
alarm bells about chemicals and cancer“) for telling readers about a
report on chemicals and cancer released last week by the President’s
Cancer Panel.

I had never heard of this panel—appointed during the Bush
Administration, no less—and went right to its 2008-2009 annual report (PDF).

The Panel says that the “risk of environmentally induced cancer has been
grossly underestimated,” that “nearly 80,000 chemicals [are] on the
market in the United States, many of which are … understudied and
largely unregulated,” and that “the public remains unaware … that
children are far more vulnerable to environmental toxins and radiation
than adults.”

evidence suggests that some environmental agents may
initiate or promote cancer by disrupting normal immune and endocrine
system functions. The burgeoning number and complexity of known or
suspected environmental carcinogens compel us to act to protect public
health, even though we may lack irrefutable proof of harm.

I’m guessing this report will cause a furor. Why? “Lack irrefutable
proof” means the science isn’t there. In this situation, the Panel
advises precaution. Check out these examples selected from the
recommendations:

    • Parents and child care providers should choose foods, house
and garden products, play spaces, toys, medicines, and medical tests
that will minimize children’s exposure to toxics. Ideally, both mothers
and fathers should avoid exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

    • It is preferable to use filtered tap water instead of
commercially bottled water.

    • Exposure to pesticides can be decreased by choosing … food
grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers [translation: organics]
and washing conventionally grown produce to remove residues.

    • Exposure to antibiotics, growth hormones, and toxic run-off
from livestock feedlots can be minimized by eating free-range meat
[translation: don’t eat feedlot meat].

Expect to hear an uproar from the industries that might be affected by
this report. The American Cancer Society (ACS) doesn’t like it either
(see Denise Grady’s take
on the report, also in the
New York Times), since the report
implies that the ACS hasn’t been doing enough to educate the public
about this issue.