 |
- Misreports Funding
- Inaccurate claims of research on cancer
prevention are uncovered.
In 1998, the ACS claimed that it funded
nineteen large research grants on"
Environmental Carcinogenesis," at a cost of $2.6 million— 0.4
percent of its
$678 million revenues, apart from $873 million assets. However,
the great
majority of these grants were in molecular biology; only three,
funded for a total
of $330,000 (less than 0.1 percent of revenues), reasonably
qualified as environ-mental
cancer research. The American Cancer Society (ACS) also claimed
that it funded 92 "Prevention" grants,
with $23 million. Again, these largely dealt with molecular
biology,
with $2.4 million allocated to tobacco and diet, excluding
any consideration of
contamination with carcinogenic (besides other toxic) pesticides.
A recent report
has confirmed that concentrations of toxic and carcinogenic
pesticide residues,
including DDT, are three times higher in conventional foods
than in organic foods
(26). The ACS is even more dismissive than the NCI in its understanding
of
and priorities on primary cancer prevention. In Cancer Facts
and Figures 2002,
the ACS blandly reassures readers that cancer risks from ditary
pesticides,
hazardous waste sites, ionizing radiation from "closely controlled" nuclear
plants,
and nonionizing radiation are all at such low levels as to
be "negligible" (27).
In striking contrast to the ACS's indifference to cancer prevention,
in February
2002, the Canadian Cancer Society unequivocally affirmed the
precautionary
principle "to develop our cancer prevention and risk reduction
messages" (28).
However, in its September 2001 "Discussion Document," the
Canadian govern-ment
effectively rejected this principle, as recently criticized
by the Canadian
Environmental Law Association, in favor of a cost-benefit and
scientific risk-based
framework (29). The Canadian Cancer Society has also joined with the Sierra Club
of Canada in
demanding a ban on the "cosmetic" use of carcinogenic
pesticides for the home,
garden, lawn, and recreational facilities (30). The Minister of
Health, Anne
MacLellan, promptly rejected this demand, claiming that "there
is no evidence
to support such a case. Pesticides are registered only if their
risks have been
determined to be acceptable when used according to instructions" (31).
Note that
such pesticide uses are being withdrawn in the United States, in
part because of
requirements of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act and, in considerable
part,
because Canada has no U. S.-type legal liability deterrents.
The ACS track record raises grave concerns
about special interests and conflicts
of interest, in sharp opposition to the public interest (Appendix
I). Dr. John Durant,
former ASCO (American Society for Clinical Oncology) executive,
president (awarded the 2002 ASCO Presidential U. S. Cancer Fighter
of the Year award), charged: "It has always seemed to me that
this
was an issue of control by the ACS over the cancer agenda. They
are protecting
their own fundraising capacity" from competition by survivor
groups (quoted in
43). These conflicts of interest extend to the personal. The NDC
Legislative
Committee cochair, Dr. DeVita, is board chair of CancerSource.
com, a Web site
promoting the ACS Consumers' Guide to Cancer Drugs; other Legislative
Committee members also serve on the board. These members have thus
developed
their own special interests in a publicly funded forum.
An increasing proportion of ACS revenues come
from the pharmaceutical, cancer drug, mammography film and machine,
and biotechnology industries.
This is reflected in generous ACS allocations for research on highly
profitable
patented cancer drugs and aggressive promotion of pre-menopausal
mammography.
In striking contrast, less than 0.1 percent of revenues are allocated
to environmental, occupational, and other avoidable causes of
cancer.
Not
surprisingly, and unambiguously, the authoritative U. S. charity
watchdog, the
Chronicle of Philanthropy, warned against the transfer of money
from the public
purse to private hands: "The ACS is more interested in accumulating
wealth
than saving lives" (quoted in 44, p. 566).
More seriously, ACS policies on primary cancer
prevention extend from
a decades-long track record of indifference to frank hostility,
compounded
by pro-industry bias (Appendix I). This even extends to the tobacco
industry.
Shandwick International, representing R. J. Reynolds, and Edelman
Worldwide,
representing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, have been
major public
relations firms for the NDC Legislative Committee in rewriting
the National
Cancer Act (45).
The highly politicized and nontransparent agenda
of the ACS is troubling.
This is further exemplified by its direct governmental lobbying.
Equally troubling
are questionably legal donations to Democratic and Republican governors'
associations:
"
We wanted to look like players and be players," an ACS representative
admitted (quoted in 44, p. 568).
The ACS has clearly disqualified itself from
any future leadership role in
the National Cancer Program, which should remain under NCI control.
REFERENCES
1. Ries, L. A. G., et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973– 1999.
National Cancer
Institute, Bethesda, Md., 2002.
2. Dinse, G. E., et al. Unexplained increases
in cancer incidence in the United States from
1975 to 1994: Possible sentinel health indicators? Annu. Rev.
Public Health 20:
173– 209, 1999.
3. Edwards, B. K., et al. Annual report to
the nation on the status of cancer, 1973– 1999,
featuring implications of age and aging on the U. S. cancer burden.
Cancer 94( 10):
2766– 2792, 2002.
4. Davis, D., and Hoel, D. (eds.). Trends
in Cancer Mortality in Industrial Countries.
New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1990.
5. National Cancer
Institute and American Cancer Society. Report Card. Bethesda,
Md., March 12, 1998.
6. Stolberg, S. G. New cancer cases decreasing
in U. S. as deaths do, too. New York
Times, March 13, 1998.
7. Bailar, J., and Gornik, H. L. Cancer undefeated. N.
Engl. J. Med. 336( 22): 1569– 1574, 1997.
8. Clapp, R. W. The decline in U. S. cancer
mortality from 1991 to 1995: What's behind
the numbers? Int. J. Health Serv. 28( 4): 747– 755, 1998.
9. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Progress
Report. Bethesda, Md., 2001.
10. Greenberg, D. Science, Money, and
Politics.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
2001.
11. Kolata, G. Test proves fruitless, fueling
new debate on cancer screening. New York
Times, April 9, 2002.
12. Fellers, L. Taxol is one of the best cancer
drugs ever discovered by the federal
government: Why is it beyond some patients' reach? Washington
Post Magazine,
May 31, 1998.
13. Epstein, S. S. The Politics of Cancer,
Revisited. East Ridge Press, Fremont Center,
N. Y., 1998.
14. Doll, R., and Peto, R. The causes of cancer:
Quantitative estimates of avoidable risks
of cancer in the U. S. today. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 66: 1191– 1308,
1981.
15. Stallones, R. A., and Downs, T. A. A
Critical Review of Estimates of the Fraction of
Cancer in the U. S. Related to Environmental Factors. Report to
the American Indus-trial
Health Council. University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston,
1979.
16. Landrigan, P. Commentary: Environmental
disease: A preventable epidemic. Am. J.
Public Health 82( 7): 941– 943, 1992.
17. Anderson, S. J., et al. Expanding
the Public's Right-to-Know: Materials Accounting
Data as a Tool for Promoting Environmental Justice and Pollution
Prevention. Inform,
New York, 2000 (
www.informinc.org).
18. Doody, M. M., et al. Breast cancer mortality
after diagnostic mammography: Findings
from the U. S. scoliosis cohort study. Spine 25( 16): 2052– 2063,
2000.
19. Ford, L. Letter to J. W. Stratton, Interim
Director, California Environmental Protection
Agency, Sacramento, June 23, 1995.
20. Greaves, P., et al. Two-year carcinogenicity
study of tamoxifen in Alderley Park
Wistar-derived rats. Cancer Res. 53( 17): 3919– 3924, 1993.
21. Kliewer, E. V., and Smith, K. R. Breast
cancer mortality among immigrants in
Australia and Canada. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 87( 15): 1154– 1161,
1995.
22. Lichtenstein, P., et al. Environmental
and heritable factors in the causation of cancer:
Analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland.
N. Engl. J. Med.
343( 2): 78– 85, 2000.
23. Willett, W. C. Balancing life-style and
genomics research for disease prevention.
Science 296: 695– 698, 2002.
24. Epstein, S. S. Evaluation of the National
Cancer Program and proposed reforms. Am. J. Ind. Med. 24: 109– 133, 1993.
25. National Cancer Institute. Cancer
Facts. Bethesda, Md., May 25, 2001.
26. Baker, B. P., et al. Pesticide residues
in conventional, integrated pest management
(IPM)-grown and organic foods: Insights from three U. S. data sets.
Food Additives
Contaminants 19( 5): 427– 446, 2002.
27. American Cancer Society.
Cancer Facts and Figures 2002. Atlanta, 2002.
28. White, J., CEO, Canadian Cancer Society.
Letter to Guelph Mercury (Ontario), April 9, 2002.
29. Government of Canada. Discussion Document.
Ottawa, September 2001.
30. Sierra Club of Canada and Caandian Cancer
Society. Environmentalists Join Canadian
Cancer Society in Call for Ban on Cancer-Causing Lawn Pesticides.
Press release,
March 1, 2002.
31. Ministry of Health, Government of Canada,
2002.
32. Epstein, S. S., and Hauter, W. Preventing
food poisoning: Sanitation not irradiation. Int. J. Health
Serv.
31( 1): 187– 192, 2001.
33. Eli Lilly and Co. Evista. Unpublished
report, December 15, 1997, p. 13.
34. National Toxicology Program. Toxicology
and Carcinogenesis Studies of Methyl-phenidate Hydrochloride
in F 344/ N Rats and
B6C3F1 Mice. Technical Report Series
No. 439. Bethesda, Md., July 1995.
35. International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Atrazine. IARC Monograph, Vol. 73,
pp. 59– 113, 1999.
36. Associated Press. Weed killer found to
sexually deform frogs. New York Times,
April 17, 2002.
37. Hayes, T. B., et al. Hermaphroditic, demasculinized
frogs after exposure to the
herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. 99( 8):
5476– 5480, 2002.
38. Wilson, D. Fateful Harvest: The True
Story of a Small Town Global Industry, and
a Toxic Secret. HarperCollins, New York, 2001.
39. Epstein, S. S. Got (genetically engineered)
Milk! The Monsanto rBGH/ BST Milk
Wars Handbook. Seven Stories Press, 2001 (
www.sevenstories.com).
40. Gould, J. M., et al. Strontium-90 in deciduous
teeth as a factor
in early childhood
cancer. Int. J. Health Serv. 30( 3): 515– 539, 2000.
41. Epstein, S. S. Legislative proposals for
reversing the cancer epidemic and controlling
run-away industrial technologies. Int. J. Health Serv. 30( 2):
353– 371, 2000.
42. Public Broadcasting Service. Kids and
chemicals. Now with Bill Moyers, May 10,
2002.
43. ACS-led national cancer dialogue beset
by patient mistrust, lack of openness. Cancer
Letter 26( 3): 1– 12, January 21, 2000.
44. Epstein, S. S. American Cancer Society:
The world's wealthiest "non-profit" institution.
Int. J. Health Serv. 29( 3): 565– 578, 1999.
45. PR firm hired by American Cancer Society
also represents "Team
Kool Green." Cancer Letter 26( 4): 1– 3, January 28,
2000.
Excerpted from THE CRISIS IN U. S. AND INTERNATIONAL
CANCER POLICY
by Samuel S. Epstein, Nicholas A. Ashford, Brent Blackwelder,
Barry Castleman, Gary Cohen, Edward Goldsmith, Anthony Mazzocchi,
and Quentin D. Young, International Journal of Health Services
Volume 32, No. 4, 2002
CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Cancer Prevention Coalition
University of Illinois at Chicago
School of Public Health
2121 W. Taylor St., MC 922
Chicago, IL 60612
|
