Institute of Medicine ... "Pinkwashed"?

******

According to the IOM Report released on December 7, 2011 (see link below), "[m]ore than 230,000 new cases of breast cancer are expected to be diagnosed in the United States in 2011." As such, the following summary by BCAction is significant on a number of levels. For me personally, it amplifies the frustration that I contend with in not knowing / understanding the hows and whys I sit here today with metastatic breast cancer - as I, like so many women have no identifiable risk factors. No "life-style" risk factors what-so-ever; and at the initial stages of my diagnosis over 2 years ago, I went through genetic testing (I needed to know for my 3 children) just to confirm that my DNA was not predisposed. Nothing.

Generally, what is currently not going on at the SABCS, informs me that either the medical community is -- at best, still stymied (by the breast cancer industry, maybe?) or at worst, not genuinely interested, in making any real head way in proactively identifying and addressing the true environmental causes for the increase in incidences of breast cancer - especially in developed countries.

Feeding the personal and general concerns is that this Symposium is reportedly being funded, solely by...Susan G. Komen.

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Breast-Cancer-and-the-Environment-A-Life-Course-Approach.aspx

For immediate release
December 7th, 2011
Contact: Angela Wall, Communications Manager (415) 243-9301 x16 awall@bcaction.org

SAN FRANCISCO, CA–Breast Cancer Action (BCAction), the respected watchdog of the breast cancer movement, responded with disappointment to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach released today at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS).

The IOM was asked to review the current evidence on breast cancer and the environment, consider gene-environment interactions, review challenges in investigating environmental contributions to breast cancer, explore evidence-based actions that women might take to reduce their risk and recommend research in all of these areas.

“The IOM Report fails to turn the tide on this epidemic because it misses some important opportunities to implement real changes” said Breast Cancer Action’s Executive Director Karuna Jaggar, commenting from SABCS. “They too broadly define the environment as all factors not directly inherited through DNA which includes anything from genetic changes to tissue, to stress, to lifestyle choices and changes in abdominal fat rather than the chemicals we are all exposed to in our everyday lives.”

Breast Cancer Action is deeply disappointed in the report which fails to advance research on breast cancer and the environment and shed light on the 70% of breast cancer diagnoses for which there are no known risk factors. “The report recommendations for women merely rehash the little bit we already know about lifestyle and breast cancer and miss an opportunity to focus on relatively unknown areas of the environment,” said Jaggar.

The report correctly identifies methodological challenges in data collection establishing links between environmental factors and breast cancer. “In medical science, the gold standard of evidence is random controlled experiments on humans; however, as the report rightly points out conducting random controlled experiments on the effect of toxins on women would be immoral and impermissible. We must find alternatives that enable us to take action.” Jaggar stated that “we need to adopt the gold standard of prevention and that’s the precautionary principle because waiting for absolute proof is killing us. Instead, the IOM shrugged the burden of prevention onto women’s lifestyle choices.”

IOM committee member Dr. Robert A. Hiatt stated at SABCS that if women follow the recommendations of the IOM report “we don’t even know whether they will actually reduce their risk.”Jaggar adamantly argued that “we don’t need reports that dink around with lifestyle choices—more exercise, less alcohol, avoiding excess weight, don’t smoke, etc.—which have at best an extremely small role in reducing breast cancer risk and which fail to acknowledge that not all women have equal access to healthy lifestyle choices. We need to apply precautionary principles that stop cancer before it starts.”

###

Breast Cancer Action (www.bcaction.org)—a national non-profit education and advocacy organization refuses to accept funding from pharmaceutical companies or any other organizations that profit from or contribute to the breast cancer epidemic.

CancerCultrChronicle
Posted December 8, 2011 at 10:20 am | Permalink

What will you do to safeguard the future from toxins?

******

As someone who is dealing with chronic cancer. As someone who, both medical communities, speculate that my cancer is due to exposure to environmental toxins of some sort, the following struck quite a chord with me. My goal, as I deal with my own health situation, is to further safeguard my children's future by educating them about the health risk of living and breathing every day. What will you do to safeguard your children's future?

 

What do detergents and fragrances have to do with breast cancer?

Posted on September 14, 2011

One in eight American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lifetimes. Of the women who get it, one out of five will die from it.

Understandably, given these statistics, many women worry about their chances of getting breast cancer. Some women with high risk factors, such as having close relatives who have had breast cancer, go through extra screenings. Some even consider preventative removal of their breasts.
We know that more cases of breast cancer are occurring than fifty years ago. Unfortunately, a whopping 70% of these breast cancer cases are not associated with any known breast cancer risk factors. Scientists are searching for answers.

Everyday chemicals can act like hormones

Over the last decade, scientists have established that some of the chemicals women exposed to can affect their chances of getting breast cancer. For example, certain chemicals called endocrine disruptors can interact with our biology by mimicking the hormones our bodies normally produce (the technical term is the endocrine system). Some of these interactions are thought to increase the chances of getting breast cancer.

How much should we worry about endocrine disruptors? Well, exposure data indicates that we ought to be fairly concerned.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are all around us. They are used in everyday products like detergents, antibacterial soaps, plastic containers, air freshener sprays and flame-resistant furniture. We take in these chemicals through our skin, through the air we breathe, and even through chemically contaminated food.

Everyday chemicals are affecting young girls

Phthalates are a group of chemicals produced in huge amounts, exceeding 470 million pounds per year. Phthalates can be found in products made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic, like shower curtains and flooring. They are also found in varnishes, paints, medical devices like IV tubing and blood bags, and more.

Certain phthalates are endocrine disruptors and have been linked to early puberty and breast development in girls. Research has shown an association between early puberty and breast cancer.

Everyday chemicals can affect our health even before we’re born

Scientists have found that it's especially problematic when a developing fetus is exposed to certain chemicals. In studies on mice, prenatal exposure to the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) led to harmful effects that persisted over a lifetime. Specifically, mice exposed to BPA while still in the womb and in the earliest stages after birth had greater sensitivity to the hormone estrogen during puberty.
The authors of this study note that changes in estrogen levels are a known, central risk factor for breast cancer and that increased sensitivity to estrogen may be of concern.

 

Everyday chemicals can make it harder to fight cancer

For women already diagnosed with breast cancer, toxic chemicals can do further damage. For example, a number of alkylphenols, chemicals found in detergents and cleaners, and BPA have been shown to stimulate faster division and growth of mammalian breast cancer cells.
BPA may also confer “chemoresistance,” which can make cancer treatments like chemotherapy and other anti-cancer drugs less effective. Scientists have found that breast cancer cells respond less well to chemotherapy treatments after having been exposed to BPA. This has serious implications for the chemotherapy treatment of breast cancer patients who have been exposed to BPA.
Unfortunately, almost everyone is regularly exposed to BPA. The Centers for Disease Control’s biomonitoring data reveals that BPA is present in more than 90% of Americans.

 

Why are all these chemicals in our bodies?

If we know these chemicals can cause us harm, why isn’t the government protecting us from them?
This year marks the 35^th anniversary of one of our most inefficient and ineffective laws: The Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. Enacted in 1976, this law grandfathered in 60,000 already existing chemicals without requiring any assessment of their safety. There are now over 80,000 chemicals on EPA’s chemical inventory. Unfortunately, persistent deficiencies in TSCA have resulted in EPA being able to require testing on only around 200 of them.

For the great majority of chemicals available for use, then, we are left in the dark as to how they’re being used, who’s being exposed, and what harm they might be causing—whether we're talking about breast cancer or other conditions, such as obesity, infertility and Alzheimer’s, for which evidence is also mounting that links them to chemical exposures.

 

We need a better law: the Safe Chemicals Act

This fall, Congress is likely to take up the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011. This legislation would vastly improve TSCA, giving us much stronger protection against toxic chemicals. Chemical manufacturers would have to provide basic safety data on their chemicals. New chemicals would be assessed for safety before they are allowed onto the market and into the products we buy.

Unfortunately, effective chemicals policies weren’t available for the 40,000 women who died of breast cancer in the past year. But for those of us lucky enough to be free of it or fighting it, for the babies not yet born and the young girls who haven’t made it to puberty yet—we can and need to do better.
Tell your Senators now how important it is to support the Safe Chemicals Act.

 

Sources

I Colon, D Caro, C J Bourdony, and O Rosario. “Identification of phthalatePeurto Rican girls with premature breast development.” Environmental Health Perspectives. September, 2000; 108 (9): 895-900.
Labat, Vaillant, Sheridan, Pal, Wu, Simpson, Yasuda, Smyth, Martin, Lindeman and Visvader. “Control of mammary stem cell function by steroid hormone signaling.” Nature 2010.
LaPensee, Tuttle, Fox, and Ben-Jonathan. “Bisphenol A at Low Nanomolar Doses Confers Chemoresistance in Estrogen Receptor-α–Positive and –Negative Breast Cancer Cells.” Environmental Health Perspectives, February 2009. 117(2): 175–180.
White R, Jobling S, Hoard S A, Sumpter J P, Parker M G. “Environmentally Persistent Alkylphenolic Compounds Are Estrogenic.” Endocrinology Volume 135 No 1
Wadia, Vanderberg, Schaeberle, Rubin, Sonnenschein, Soto. “Perinatal Bisphenol A exposure Increases Estrogen Sensitivity of the Mammary Gland in Diverse Mouse Strains.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 17 January 2007.

Environmental Toxins and Cancer Risk

******   
Heavy Metal Toxicity & Testing


In Maricopa County (Arizona) we are in the 90th to 100th percentile for cancer risk meaning our county is one of the most toxic counties in the United States - Scorecard*. Our biggest cancer risk comes from Cadmium a potent xenobiotic shown to do irreparable harm to nearly all organ systems. Heavy metals have been linked to a multitude of conditions including cancer, heart, kidney, infertility, neurological disease and much more.

Heavy metals are depurated through chelators including but not limited to DMPS, CaEDTA, and DMSA. Chelation is the only effective way to remove heavy metals due to the fact they are bioaccumulative and build up in the body with each exposure and have very long half lives.



*In Maricopa County . . . . . .from 1988 to 2002, total cancer risk scores have increased 681%.

Chemical Name / Cancer Risk Scores Pounds of benzene-equivalents

CADMIUM COMPOUNDS 6,500,000
CHROMIUM 62,000
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 46,000
LEAD 18,000
LEAD COMPOUNDS 13,000
CHROMIUM COMPOUNDS 5,900
DICHLOROMETHANE 4,300
BENZENE 2,300
NICKEL 1,400
NICKEL COMPOUNDS 740
TRICHLOROETHYLENE 420
FORMALDEHYDE 220
METHYL TERT-BUTYL ETHER 82

Note: These rankings do not cover all chemical releases reported to TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) - they only include chemicals that possess risk scores. As a result of data gaps or modeling problems, not all TRI chemicals possess the information required to weight their mass release by toxicity and exposure potential. Dioxin compounds, for example, are not included in these rankings. TRI chemicals that lack risk scores should not be assumed to be safe.

http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/county.tcl?fips_county_code=04013#major_chemical_releases