Dear friends and colleagues,

It’s that time of year again, and as noteworthy as the fall colours in my part of the country is the colour of pink to be found everywhere, marking Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

On October 7th, Parliament Hill was “bathed in pink” in a campaign cosmetic manufacturer Estee Lauder is sponsoring as part of the month’s activities. An unimaginable array of pink-coloured consumer items (some of them laced with carcinogenic compounds) call out to us from all directions. This morning on my way to work I was struck (metaphorically speaking) by a fully pink taxi cab covered in Awareness Month messages. For those of us involved in women’s health who have advocated for a focus on prevention and getting at the cause of breast cancer, as well as for many women who are living with the disease, this can be a most cringe-worthy time.

While more cancers are being caught, rates of death from the disease have decreased only slightly. Early detection is, of course, important but it does not get at preventing the disease in the first place. The need has never been greater to understand the causes of breast cancer that go beyond individual behavioural and lifestyle changes and consider influences that are occupational and environmental in nature.

Samantha King, author of “Pink Ribbons, Inc”, elaborates on her concerns about pink campaigns in an interview on CBC’s “Q” (scroll down to October 6).

There are more and more signs of hope that others are questioning the current approach to Breast Cancer Awareness Month and I feel they deserve our support.

Kudos to Breast Cancer Action Montreal (BCAM) who have mounted a spirited campaign encouraging us to sign a petition directed at Avon Canada pointing out the contradiction between their manufacturing of cosmetics containing chemicals that are contributing to cancer, while purporting to be concerned about women’s health. Please sign the petition or send a letter (samples provided):

You will no doubt be approached – if you haven’t been already – to donate money towards fundraising events for the cure. If you have contributed to this in the past, please consider matching that donation to organizations whose attention is focused on prevention: Breast Cancer Action Montreal or Prevent Cancer Now.

Thanks for hearing me out with this little rant!

 
Also in this issue on An Ounce …

• Welcome to the Fall 2010 Issue of An Ounce
• Preventing Cancer: A Call to Action
• Canadian Responses to the President’s Cancer Panel
• Cancer Prevention is in our Power
• Why do some people get cancer while others do not?
• Breast Cancer Month – Awareness or Overkill?
• The Story of Cosmetics – What’s Canada’s Story?
• Incineration Update – Fall 2010
• Why I am a Cancer Prevention Activist
• Prevention Shorts

It’s hard to find someone in this country who isn’t connected to cancer either through personal diagnosis, or that of a close friend or relative. Recent statistics from the Canadian Cancer Society show that “Cancer is the leading cause of premature death in Canada,” and, “approximately one in four Canadians will die of Cancer.”

Because of its prevalence, we begin to question the causes of cancer and wonder if there is more we can do to prevent its occurrence.We know now that popular sources of power, namely coal and nuclear energy, are contributing factors to cancer. But there’s good news – renewable energy sources offer a solution.

In a 2009 position paper authored by Dr. Cathy Vakil and Dr. Linda Harvey, scientific data about the nuclear energy lifecycle and its relation to human health is thoroughly reviewed. According to this paper, health studies from Canada and around the world show an increase in leukemia cases, lung cancer, thyroid cancer, breast cancer and other serious illnesses, with both people who work in and live near nuclear facilities.

Chemicals of concern include radon, the second leading cause of lung cancer (after smoking), and tritium, a carcinogen and mutagen.With our heavy water CANDU reactors, Canada releases large quantities of tritium but our use of nuclear energy continues, despite this health risk.

Coal is another cancer culprit, emitting the carcinogens chromium and arsenic. Ontario’s Nanticoke coal-fired plant is the largest coal plant in North America and contributes to increased incidence of illness, including severe respiratory problems. According to the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, nearly 250 people die each year as a result of illnesses related to Ontario’s coal plants. Most are in agreement that we need to find healthier sources to meet our electricity needs.

Renewable energy sources – including wind power, solar photovoltaic, low-impact hydro and geothermal – are free from polluting emissions and cancer-causing chemicals. Though there are some energy costs with initial production and set-up, these renewable energy technologies are much safer than coal and nuclear. While there are unavoidable dangers with using coal (toxic chemicals released into the atmosphere) and nuclear (uranium extraction and toxic waste disposal), there is nothing inherently harmful about setting up a windmill, or a few solar panels, to produce energy.

Sure, some individuals may disagree with a field of solar panels on an aesthetic level. Others may get annoyed with the sounds from a local wind farm. However, with the province of Ontario’s regulation, which demands a minimum 550 metre set-back for the installation of wind turbines, these annoyances can generally be avoided. In time, renewable energy devices will become a welcomed part of our landscape, just as we’ve become accustomed to seeing telephone poles along our roads and transmission lines in country fields.

Cancer prevention is in our power. It’s in the kind of power we choose to light and heat our homes; play our stereos and recharge our cell phones. In fact, the choice of embracing renewable technology is a must if we’re serious about fighting cancer.

Article reprinted from the Fall 2010 Newsletter of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE).

 
Also in this issue on An Ounce …

• Welcome to the Fall 2010 Issue of An Ounce
• Preventing Cancer: A Call to Action
• Canadian Responses to the President’s Cancer Panel
• Cancer Prevention is in our Power
• Why do some people get cancer while others do not?
• Breast Cancer Month – Awareness or Overkill?
• The Story of Cosmetics – What’s Canada’s Story?
• Incineration Update – Fall 2010
• Why I am a Cancer Prevention Activist
• Prevention Shorts

Identifying the causes of cancer, in order to help develop preventive strategies, has been of great interest for a long time. Almost 30 years ago, the Office of Technology Assessment of the US Congress commissioned two British epidemiologists, Richard Doll and Richard Peto, to quantify the avoidable risks of cancer in the US. They limited their evaluation to cancer deaths in people under age 65 and, using epidemiologic data, estimated the largest contributors to be tobacco (30%) and diet (35%). Far down on the list were environmental pollution (2%) and occupational exposures (4%). Doll and Peto were fairly confident about their estimates for tobacco and less so about diet. They acknowledged that estimating other factors, including pollutants, was hampered even more by a number of assumptions, data gaps, and uncertainties. Despite these limits, which other analysts have repeatedly pointed out over the ensuing years, many scientists and policy makers continue to accept Doll and Peto’s estimates as fact. Their numbers have supported arguments against spending time and resources to reduce exposures to environmental contaminants, emphasizing instead the importance of personal lifestyle choices.

The President’s Cancer Panel Report

Now the U.S. President’s Cancer Panel (PCP) has weighed in. Established in 1971 with the purpose of evaluating the National Cancer Program at the National Cancer Institute, members of the PCP are appointed by the President. They are charged with monitoring the National Cancer Program and reporting any delays in rapid execution of the program to the President. LaSalle Leffall MD, oncologist and professor of surgery at Howard University College of Medicine, and Margaret Kripke PhD, professor of immunology at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, comprise the panel responsible for this year’s report. A third slot is vacant.

Previous PCP reports have addressed tobacco use, diet, and other lifestyle factors. This year’s report focused on environmental exposures—industrial, occupational and agricultural chemical exposures, indoor/outdoor air pollution, water contamination, nuclear fallout, radiation, and electromagnetic fields. The panel based its findings and recommendations on testimony at four meetings from 45 invited experts from academia, government, industry, the environmental and cancer advocacy communities, and the public, as well as additional information gathering. In their heavily referenced report, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now, the panel says that “previous estimates [of environmental causes of cancer] are woefully out of date…and underestimate significantly the true toll of cancer related to these exposures.” Not content with just calling for more research, the panel also strongly recommended additional action, based on what we already know.

The analysis received considerable media attention and was hailed by many of us in the environmental and public health advocacy communities. We agree that emphasis on smoking cessation and diet is extremely important but we have long held that additional measures must be taken to further reduce the burden of many kinds of cancer. One of the report’s important contributions is its succinct summary of many of the complexities of cancer biology that make it extremely difficult to quantify the relative importance of myriad interactive risk factors in the origins of cancer. It concludes, “We do not know the extent to which environmental contaminants contribute to the cancer burden, but we know enough to act.” It calls for the “adoption of a precautionary, prevention-oriented approach [to] replace current reactionary approaches to environmental contaminants in which human harm must be proven before action is taken to reduce or eliminate exposures.” The panel urged the President “most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.”This new call for a precautionary approach to cancer is welcome. The PCP seems to agree that complex systems, whether biologic, technologic, or ecologic, behave in ways that are difficult to fully understand. Yet, waiting for quantitative proof of cause-and-effect relationships before taking action means that we miss opportunities to prevent harm to the people and things that we care about.

At SEHN we, along with many colleagues, consider the precautionary principle an essential guide for decision making. Precaution requires heeding early warnings and shifting the responsibility for evaluating safety to proponents of an activity before and during its deployment, rather than reacting to damage after it’s done. A precautionary approach involves examining alternatives and participatory decision making.

Contrary to caricatures often drawn by critics, a precautionary approach is not anti-scientific nor does it require banning all activities that might cause harm. Rather, it requires a close look at what we know and don’t know, what we suspect, sources of uncertainty, how easy or difficult they are to resolve, who should bear the burden of proof and responsibility, what is at risk, and what the alternatives are; then, what action is indicated. As we watch the oil flow in the Gulf, financial institutions collapse, glaciers melt, childhood cancer rates rise, and loved ones suffer, we are reminded of what is at stake.

The case for precaution

Here’s how the PCP came to their call for a precautionary approach to cancer prevention. They began by reminding us that cancer continues to devastate the lives of Americans. Approximately 41% of people in the US will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives and about 21% of Americans will die from cancer. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing.

The panel explained that attempts to identify excess cancer risk due to environmental contaminants, radiation, and other harmful exposures face extensive challenges, and that research efforts aimed at primary prevention are underfunded. Understanding causal relationships is inherently difficult for many reasons, they said. Cancer initiation and progression is a complex, multifactor multistage process. Multiple biologic mechanisms are likely to be involved, including inflammation and immune and endocrine dysfunction. The panel notes that tens of thousands of chemicals used by Americans in their daily lives are poorly studied and largely unregulated, although many have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. The entire U.S. population is exposed daily to complex mixtures of them—from consumer products and medical, occupational, military, and agricultural sources. Yet, we don’t routinely study mixtures in laboratory cancer assays. Inadequate exposure assessments impede research efforts, and medical and public health professionals don’t routinely monitor or even inquire about sources of exposures to potential carcinogens. Furthermore, we have no real understanding of how chemical mixtures interact with other background risk factors, including diet, socioeconomic stressors, and genetic susceptibility. We know that certain periods of life, such as early development or puberty, are times of increased vulnerability to exposure to potential carcinogens. But we don’t know much about exposures during those times and their long-term effects, although we do know that “numerous environmental chemicals can cross the placental barrier. To a disturbing extent, babies are born pre-polluted.”The panel also expressed concern about the rapid increase in radiation exposure from medical imaging, particularly in children, its cumulative effect on cancer risk throughout life, lack of awareness on the part of medical professionals and the public, and inadequate documentation of exposure levels in individuals.

They acknowledged that some groups of people are at higher risk. For example, disadvantaged populations are more likely to be employed in occupations with higher levels of exposure to potential carcinogens and to live in more highly contaminated communities. This is not just a health issue, they said, but a matter of environmental justice.

Shortcomings of Doll and Peto

The greatest shortcoming of the earlier Doll and Peto estimates, the panel says, is that their “calculation ……does not fully account for the fact that environmental contaminants interact with each other and that all avoidable causes are not known.” These are important points. Doll and Peto themselves acknowledged that risk factors interact, and that adding the contribution of each risk factor as if it acted independently of others would result in a number larger than 100%. Obviously we cannot prevent more than 100% of cancers. Nevertheless, the attributable risk factors in Doll and Peto’s original table of estimates add up to almost exactly 100%.

Richard Clapp and coauthors pointed out in 2007 that “although Doll and Peto acknowledged that attributing causes of cancer to percentages that nicely add to 100% was an erroneous exercise, the mainstream of cancer prevention and control has somehow missed this important point.” The PCP adds that since the Doll and Peto estimates were published, environmental exposures have become more numerous and the impact of various exposures, whether individual, simultaneous, sequential, or cumulative over a lifetime, may not be simply additive but rather synergistic.

Act on what we know now

In summary, the panel concluded: “Despite modest overall decreases in cancer incidence and mortality, cancer continues to devastate lives. The incidence of some kinds of cancer, including certain childhood cancers, continues to increase. Exposures to environmental agents known or likely to be related to cancer risk are ubiquitous, complex, poorly quantified, and inadequately studied. The extent to which they contribute to cancer incidence is uncertain but earlier estimates are outdated, invalid, and too low.”

Research challenges are numerous although our understanding of cancer biology has advanced considerably. The importance of interactions among risk factors, exposures to mixtures of hazardous substances, the timing of exposures, windows of vulnerability, and susceptible populations have become increasingly apparent. Long latency periods between relevant exposures and the appearance of clinical disease add to the complexity.

Thus, the panel concludes, while we need to ramp up our research efforts, now is the time to reduce or eliminate exposures to cancer-causing and cancer-promoting environmental exposures to protect all Americans, but especially children. We must do that based on what we know now. Quantifying the contribution of environmental exposures to the nation’s total cancer burden or to cancer risks in sub-populations will always be difficult, but it is not required in order to act. This is the essence of a precautionary approach to cancer prevention.

The panel recommends action at several levels:

• Scientific research to enhance our understanding and by extension, our ability to prevent cancer and respond to environmental carcinogens;
• Enforcement of existing policies and regulations intended to protect workers and the public;
• Policy and regulatory reforms that support public health and reduce the burden of cancer; and
• Personal action.

With respect to regulatory reforms, the panel concluded that current governmental regulation of environmental contaminants is “rendered ineffective by five major problems: (1) inadequate funding and insufficient staffing, (2) fragmented and overlapping authorities coupled with uneven and decentralized enforcement, (3) excessive regulatory complexity, (4) weak laws and regulations, and (5) undue industry influence. Too often, these factors, either singly or in combination, result in agency dysfunction and a lack of will to identify and remove hazards.”

Reform TSCA

The panel singled out the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 as the “most egregious example of ineffective regulation of environmental chemicals.” Although this legislation was intended to give the EPA authority to control health risks from chemicals in commerce, it has failed. At the time it was adopted, TSCA grandfathered in approximately 62,000 chemicals. Today more than 80,000 chemicals are in use, including 1000-2000 new substances each year. TSCA does not require adequate safety testing before chemicals are introduced into commerce or allowed to stay on the market. The panel recommends a more integrated, coordinated and transparent system, free of political or industry influence. It should shift the burden of proof onto manufacturers to demonstrate safety of a chemical before allowing it into commerce and include post-market safety monitoring for new and existing chemicals.

A bill to reform TSCA has recently been introduced in the US Senate and a companion draft discussion bill in the House. Analysis of the bills is available on the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition website. We urge our readers to become informed and join the effort to ensure that this 35-year-old ineffective law is replaced with one that protects public and environmental health.

Nothing in the PCP report should be interpreted to undermine the importance of smoking cessation, weight control, and improved nutrition in cancer prevention. But, as Clapp and coauthors point out, “Even though tobacco smoke remains the single most significant preventable cause of cancer, it has been linked neither to the majority of cancers nor to many of the cancers that have dramatically increased in the US in recent decades including melanoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, testicular, brain, and thyroid.”

Cancer prevention will require: removing carcinogens from commerce; replacing them with tested, safer alternatives; and shifting the burden of proof to proponents of an activity to evaluate safety rather than requiring the general public or government to demonstrate harm. This is a cultural shift that makes sense to most people and yet is often fiercely resisted by those who benefit from the status quo.

We agree that it is more effective to prevent disease than to treat it and that scientific evidence of the effects of environmental exposures on disease burdens are not being adequately integrated into policies and strategies for disease prevention. Moreover, allowing people and the environment to be exposed to known or suspected carcinogens or to untested chemicals more generally is unethical. Primary prevention of cancer and other diseases should be a key feature of health care reform and efforts to control health care costs. Elements of the precautionary principle must be incorporated into these efforts for them to be successful.

 
Also in this issue on An Ounce …

• Welcome to the Fall 2010 Issue of An Ounce
• Preventing Cancer: A Call to Action
• Canadian Responses to the President’s Cancer Panel
• Cancer Prevention is in our Power
• Why do some people get cancer while others do not?
• Breast Cancer Month – Awareness or Overkill?
• The Story of Cosmetics – What’s Canada’s Story?
• Incineration Update – Fall 2010
• Why I am a Cancer Prevention Activist
• Prevention Shorts

Research will study a random selection of Canadians over the next several decades. It will record what they do and collect samples of blood and urine. For example, it will track how much they exercise, if they smoke, and how much. We hope they will also get specific about the environment in which people live. For example, did they grow up close to an industrial complex, a nuclear plant, a major highway, an airport or in a farming community? Did their parents use pesticides on their lawns? What kinds of cleansers and personal care products do they use? The current surveys do not address these questions, but we are asking the Partnership to dig deeper.

You can help. Register for the project – you don’t need to be a cancer survivor – and carefully answer their questions. Ask about questions you think they should be asking but aren’t, as described above. Researchers are working through agencies in five regions of the country. To learn more or to register for the project, please go to the regional partner where you live, as shown on the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer website.

 
Also in this issue on An Ounce …

• Welcome to the Fall 2010 Issue of An Ounce
• Preventing Cancer: A Call to Action
• Canadian Responses to the President’s Cancer Panel
• Cancer Prevention is in our Power
• Why do some people get cancer while others do not?
• Breast Cancer Month – Awareness or Overkill?
• The Story of Cosmetics – What’s Canada’s Story?
• Incineration Update – Fall 2010
• Why I am a Cancer Prevention Activist
• Prevention Shorts

The US based group, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, in partnership with Annie Leonard and Free Range Graphics, creators of the internet phenomenon and educational tool, The Story of Stuff, released the new video, The Story of Cosmetics this past July. The new animated video shows people that many cosmetic ingredients are unsustainable toxic petrochemicals, and that the system of regulating chemicals in personal care products needs updating. While the content of the video is based on US regulations and laws, much of the information is pertinent to Canada as well.

Canada’s system of testing and regulating cosmetics is much more advanced than that of the United States, but there is still room for improvement. Health Canada has banned or restricted the use of over 500 chemical ingredients for use in cosmetic products. These chemicals can be found on Canada’s Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist. Comparatively, the U.S. has banned only 8 chemical ingredients for use in cosmetics.

Canada evaluates chemicals, some of which end up on the hotlist, using a risk based assessment approach. This means chemicals are evaluated by the level of risk posed to Canadians through possible exposure. The European Union follows a hazard based assessment model, which means that if there is a known hazard associated with a chemical it is more likely to be banned or restricted. The EU has banned or restricted over 2000 chemicals from cosmetic products. The difference in Canada is, that even if we know a chemical has health risks associated to it, like BPA for example, the risk based method means it can still be used in consumer products if the risk to exposure is considered low enough – even if there is evidence of possible threats to health.

The Story of Cosmetics urges the public to advocate for stronger legislation. Even though Canada’s regulations are much more comprehensive than those of the U.S., Canadians need to use their political voice and let our government know we want them to use a precautionary approach to chemical assessment and use. This means that if there are reasonable scientific grounds for believing a process or product may not be safe, even when cause-and-effect relationships are not fully understood, preventive action must be taken. We also need stricter regulations for terms like natural and organic, as suggested in the video. Currently, industry can claim their product is totally natural, yet it can still contain petro and synthetic chemicals. Another regulatory problem that needs to be addressed in both the U.S. and Canada is the issue of chemical bi-products of production in cosmetics like 1,4 dioxane and formaldehyde. Because these chemicals are created as a result of the manufacturing process, they don’t have to be listed on ingredient labels. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and 1,4 dioxane is a hormone disrupting chemical. If we know something causes cancer, why should it be allowed in our shampoo? This labeling loophole needs to be closed.

The video release of the Story of Cosmetics and the works of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and other not-for-profit groups like BCAM (Breast Cancer Action Montreal) are beginning to make a difference. The public is taking notice and changes are happening. Because consumer demand is such a powerful tool, government and industry around the world are beginning to respond. Stricter legislation and consumer demand means industry has had to find alternative ingredients, and they have, through green chemistry and the use of simpler, natural ingredients.

So what can you do?

• Use internet resources to inform yourself. Don’t assume that just because something is for sale on the store shelf that it is completely safe for human health.
• Use Environmental Working Group’s cosmetic database and check your product’s safety ratings.
• Look for, and support cosmetic companies that have signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics – follow this link to see the Canadian companies that have signed on.
• Consider using less products.
• Make your voice heard – tell industry and government that you want safer products. Find petitions and electronic letters on Breast Cancer Action Montreal’s websites (here and here).

 
Also in this issue on An Ounce …

• Welcome to the Fall 2010 Issue of An Ounce
• Preventing Cancer: A Call to Action
• Canadian Responses to the President’s Cancer Panel
• Cancer Prevention is in our Power
• Why do some people get cancer while others do not?
• Breast Cancer Month – Awareness or Overkill?
• The Story of Cosmetics – What’s Canada’s Story?
• Incineration Update – Fall 2010
• Why I am a Cancer Prevention Activist
• Prevention Shorts

In the last issue, we reported on the (US) National Cancer Institute’s President’s Cancer Panel report, focused on “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now”. We don’t like to harp, but this really is a landmark report! An insightful review by Ted Schettler, MD MPH, explains how critical it is to take heed, and take action on prevention. PCN asked major health and cancer organizations across Canada for their take on the report, and specifically, what they are doing about environmental contaminants. Their responses are summarized in “Canadian Responses to the President’s Cancer Panel”.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment agrees that: Cancer Prevention is in our Power. Read their take on how power generation can cause cancer. …Speaking of which, Linda Gasser continues to work hard against incinerators in our communities. Read her latest round-up of activities here.

Our mission at Prevent Cancer Now is to eliminate the preventable causes of cancer. A major Canadian study is trying to help unravel the web of cancer-causing factors, and you can help. Researchers in the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow Project are hoping to recruit 300,000 Canadians and follow their progress over several decades. Find out how to get involved.

In case you managed to miss the plethora of pink, we wanted to point out that October is breast cancer awareness month. Do we really need continued awareness of this disease? Do the pink marketing efforts help? Some think not. Anne Rochon Ford is co-director of the National Network on Environments and Women’s Health. Read her plea to re-direct efforts to prevention.

A couple of great resources have been issued on toxins in cosmetics and personal care products. The Story of Cosmetics is featured on the PCN home page. Janice Melanson of Breast Cancer Action Montreal reviews this US-produced video, with a focus on how cosmetics are assessed in Canada. Our situation is better than in the US, but there’s still lots of room for improvement in the regulations, as noted in a report by the David Suzuki Foundation – “What’s Inside? That Counts”. See what you can do to take action for safe cosmetics, in this issue of An Ounce.

Finally, we bring you Dave Renaud’s story. Dave is a PCN Board member and cancer prevention activist. Why? Read on…

 
Also in this issue on An Ounce …

• Welcome to the Fall 2010 Issue of An Ounce
• Preventing Cancer: A Call to Action
• Canadian Responses to the President’s Cancer Panel
• Cancer Prevention is in our Power
• Why do some people get cancer while others do not?
• Breast Cancer Month – Awareness or Overkill?
• The Story of Cosmetics – What’s Canada’s Story?
• Incineration Update – Fall 2010
• Why I am a Cancer Prevention Activist
• Prevention Shorts

This spring, the (US) National Cancer Institute’s President’s Cancer Panel report was issued, focusing on “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now”. The report represents a call to action on environmental contaminants. Among its findings, the Panel was, “particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated.”

Heather Logan of the Canadian Cancer Society is quoted as saying, “Our science looks at a substance-by-substance exposure and doesn’t take into account the multitude of exposures we experience in daily life. If we did, it might change our risk paradigm. The potential risks associated with extremely low-level exposure may be underestimated or missed entirely.”

We wholeheartedly agree with the report’s conclusion that “We do not know the extent to which environmental contaminants contribute to the cancer burden, but we know enough to act.” Prevent Cancer Now wanted to find out what Canadian cancer and health organizations are doing in this regard, so we polled a number of leading cancer and health organizations. We received responses from the Canadian Cancer Society (CCS), the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), the Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) and the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC). Here is a summary of their responses.

1. Given the findings of the report, what is your organization doing to eliminate environmental carcinogens in our workplaces, schools and homes, at their source?

All four organizations expressed their view that Canadians should not be exposed to cancer-causing substances. They identified the work they are doing to eliminate, substitute or reduce use of substances known or believed to cause cancer.

CCS cited its work on smoking bans to reduce exposures to second-hand smoke, bans on the cosmetic use of pesticides, and its position against the continued mining and export of asbestos.

CAPE is actively campaigning for a Canada-wide prohibition on lawn pesticides; a ban on the mining and export of asbestos; and a speedy phase-out of Ontario’s coal-burning electricity plants.

CPAC has prepared and disseminated five environmental scans and meeting reports addressing toxic use reduction and environmental and occupational exposures, posted on the primary prevention resource section of its website. Another useful resource is its Prevention Policy Directory, housing Canadian policies and legal instruments (legislation, regulations, codes) issued between 1997 and 2007 that address the key modifiable risk factors for cancer and related chronic diseases. CPAC is planning a series of three webinars to promote use of the directory early next year.

CPHA began policy and advocacy work regarding environmental health over 40 years ago. Its initial advocacy work, in 1970, called for the immediate control of the sale and use of persistent pesticides such as DDT, BHC, dieldrin, aldrin, and endrin. As long ago as 1972, the organization called for ongoing monitoring and assessment of the influence of environmental pollutants on health and the need for environmental quality guidelines, limits, or standards to protect human health, among other measures. This same call is made in the President’s Cancer Panel report, 38 years later.

In 1973, CPHA emphasized that human health and the environment we live in are inseparable. Since then, CPHA has passed another dozen resolutions that support environmental health and promote use of the precautionary principle. CPHA has lobbied for the inclusion of this principle in sound environmental health practices and feels it should be mandatory in policy development at all levels of government.

In the 1990s CPHA made environmental health its top priority, issuing Human & Ecosystem Health: Canadian Perspectives, Canadian Action in 1992, as the basis for further work in the area of human and ecosystem health.

A 1998 report documented Reasons for children being more vulnerable than adults to environmental contaminants in a special supplement to the Canadian Journal of Public Health. CPHA called upon the federal Minister of Health to develop a policy on children’s environmental health and establish an office of Child Health Protection to support research on children’s environmental health. CPHA also asked the Minister of the Environment to ensure that the implementation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act provided appropriate protection to children.

Research
Several of the groups polled noted their investment in research to better understand who is being exposed to carcinogens in our environment to help focus exposure reduction strategies and cancer prevention programs. CCS noted that it has partnered with other stakeholders to launch the Occupational Cancer Research Centre in Ontario.

CPAC cited its CAREX initiative, a resource for developing estimates of the number of Canadians exposed to known, probable and possible carcinogens in workplace and community environments. CAREX Canada aims to identify regional differences and vulnerable populations. The Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow Project, a population health study looking into the causes of cancer, is highlighted elsewhere in this issue.

2. What is your organization doing to raise awareness of steps individuals can take to protect themselves and their families?

CCS says they support a community’s right to know what they are being exposed to and how, and disseminates such information to the public. They believe that all consumer products, such as cleaning products and personal care products, should be labelled with a list of ingredients and clear, easy to understand warning labels or symbols on products containing cancer casing substances so people can make informed choices about the products that they are buying and using.

CCS notes its particular concern about exposures to children, with a focus on second-hand smoke, UV radiation indoor tanning and the cosmetic use of pesticides.

In addition to distributing information on how individuals can avoid carcinogens, CAPE believes individuals can best protect themselves by working for the elimination of carcinogens. They actively encourage citizens and health professionals to contact elected officials with the message that cancer-causing chemicals are unacceptable and must be phased-out.

CPAC and CPHA work primarily through their partners and members, some of whom provide information to the public and policy-makers. Both organizations provide access to research and policy reports and public education materials that may be used by their membership.

3. What key steps do you recommend be taken by our federal and provincial governments to eliminate environmental carcinogens at their source?

CCS says that it works hard to ensure governments take steps to eliminate environmental carcinogens at their source, including:

• Support and advocacy for the precautionary principle where appropriate.
• Advocate for the introduction of new laws that aim to eliminate, substitute or reduce the use of, not just the emissions of, toxic substances.
• Work with government to raise awareness about the dangers of radon and implement public policies to better protect Canadians from radon exposure.
• Work on both the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Chemicals Management Plan so that chemicals of concern are identified and acted upon.
• Worked at the provincial level on toxics use reduction legislation.

Among its current activities, CAPE urges the Federal government to ban lawn pesticides across Canada. They are calling upon the Alberta government to enact a moratorium on tar sands development, and the Ontario government to shut its coal plants by the end of 2010. Quebec is being urged to enact an immediate ban on asbestos mining and export.

CPAC did not provide recommended actions for our governments, but rather noted that it serves as a broker of cancer control knowledge to help inform governments, NGOs and other key stakeholders, leaving it to them to advocate for change. CPAC did note that it will circulate the President’s Cancer 2009-2009 Report on Environmental Cancer Risk to its Primary Prevention Advisory Group.

CPHA notes that its stance on environmental health is very much in line with the President’s Cancer Panel report. Its environmental resolutions, motions and policy statements outline the need for actions at all levels of government to protect the health of Canadians from environmental toxic pollutants. Like the Cancer Panel, CPHA emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach, which includes research, policy, programs, monitoring and rigorous controls, to minimize the influence of environmental factors on health. Adopting a precautionary approach towards the protection of the environment is also seen as a fundamental measure in pollution prevention and the management of toxic substances. CPHA urges federal and provincial governments to focus on ecosystem health, as it is intrinsic to human health and to the prevention of cancer.

If we all agree, why isn’t more being done?

As we reviewed the information provided by these key organizations on their work to eliminate carcinogens from our environment, we were heartened, but confused. If there is such consensus on the link between environmental carcinogens and cancer, why is more not being done?

Why do we continue to have to lobby the Quebec and Federal governments to end their support for the mining and export of asbestos?
Why do we have to fight for hormone disruptors, such as BPA, to be removed from food and drink containers?
Why do most provinces in Canada not yet have legislation to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides?
Why does our government continue to subsidize the oil industry – especially the excessively polluting oil sands – rather than support renewable energy?
Why does Canada not have a ‘Green Chemistry’ plan?
Why does our government subsidize the current fossil-fuel intensive agricultural system, and not provide subsidies to sustainable, organic farming?
Why is incineration supported by municipalities, and Zero Waste not promoted as the only long-term solution to our garbage problems?

We look forward to the support of the organizations who responded to our survey, and to you, our members, as we continue to work to address these issues.

 
Also in this issue on An Ounce …

• Welcome to the Fall 2010 Issue of An Ounce
• Preventing Cancer: A Call to Action
• Canadian Responses to the President’s Cancer Panel
• Cancer Prevention is in our Power
• Why do some people get cancer while others do not?
• Breast Cancer Month – Awareness or Overkill?
• The Story of Cosmetics – What’s Canada’s Story?
• Incineration Update – Fall 2010
• Why I am a Cancer Prevention Activist
• Prevention Shorts

Toxic Cosmetics

“What’s Inside? That Counts”, a report by the David Suzuki Foundation unveils the ‘Dirty Dozen’ toxins found in most personal care products, and makes recommendations to strengthen laws and regulations to better protect human health and the environment. It provides a handy wallet guide to help you make safer purchases.

Nine Toxic Chemicals Join Banned ‘Dirty Dozen’: UN Agency

An insecticide used in farming and to treat woodworm, Lindane, was among nine highly toxic chemicals added to a “dirty dozen” of dangerous substances on an international red list. Lindane, which has toxic effects in laboratory animals and aquatic organisms, will be authorised solely for pharmaceutical use to treat head lice and scabies, the UNEP said. Read the full article.

Bisphenol A Found in Unlikely Place: Cash Receipts

One study found that touching a receipt for five seconds with a single fingertip wiped off up to 23 micrograms of bisphenol A (BPA). The chemical could then find its way onto food and be ingested. The amount wiped off increases tenfold when all fingers contact the paper and “by an order of magnitude,” scientists say, when the paper is crumpled in one’s palm. Read the full article.

 
Also in this issue on An Ounce …

• Welcome to the Fall 2010 Issue of An Ounce
• Preventing Cancer: A Call to Action
• Canadian Responses to the President’s Cancer Panel
• Cancer Prevention is in our Power
• Why do some people get cancer while others do not?
• Breast Cancer Month – Awareness or Overkill?
• The Story of Cosmetics – What’s Canada’s Story?
• Incineration Update – Fall 2010
• Why I am a Cancer Prevention Activist
• Prevention Shorts

British Columbia

Metro Vancouver Regional District Council voted on July 30th to include waste incineration as an option in their Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP). The plan is currently before the Ministry of Environment and the Minister will render a decision on the plan, likely by the end of the year. Zero Waste B.C. activists and residents attending SWMP consultation meetings raised a number of concerns including impacts of incinerator emissions on air quality and how waste incineration would impact public health, the natural environment, agriculture and taxes given the huge costs to build and operate incinerators.

Patricia Ross, the Chair of the Fraser Valley Regional District (FRVD), sets out FVRD’s concerns in a letter to Minister Penner. Please visit http://zerowastebc.org to learn how you can make your concerns known to decision-makers.

We encourage all B.C. residents to write to Minister Penner and urge him not to approve Metro’s proposed plan to burn garbage.

Ontario

This summer’s cabinet shuffle resulted in a new Minister of Environment being appointed for Ontario – the Hon. John Wilkinson. The cabinet shuffle has delayed the long awaited review of the Waste Diversion Act (WDA), which was to be addressed in the fall session. The WDA Review was to develop a framework to help move Ontario towards a Zero Waste Strategy with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as the centerpiece.

The proposed Durham-York incinerator and its potential impacts on air quality and public health have dominated all the candidate debates in the designated host community, Clarington. Incumbents who supported the incinerator are attempting to distance themselves from their voting records. The public, who are asking tough questions, are making the proposed incinerator the burning (!) issue of this municipal election.

The Ontario cabinet shuffle has also delayed the Minister of Environment’s decision regarding the proposed Durham-York garbage incinerator. Durham residents have been urging Minister Wilkinson to not render a decision before he has time to thoroughly review the file and not before the October 25th municipal and the new Durham municipal and regional councils are in place.

Also in Ontario, Renewable Energy Management continues with its Environmental Screening application and is seeking approval to build a gasification plant in Wesleyville, just east of Port Hope. Gasification is a form of incineration. You can read REM’s claims on their website. After you’ve reviewed them, we encourage you to read a 2009 report from Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League about the impacts of gasification on the environment and public health.

REM has been investigating proceeding with a similar proposal in Brant, in south west Ontario. Ac cording to local activies, no substantive action has been taken to date.

Ontario residents have an opportunity to question candidates about their positions on incineration and waste issues during the campaign. Please know the voting records of incumbents seeking re-election and know where all candidates stand before casting your vote on October 25th.

 
Also in this issue on An Ounce …

• Welcome to the Fall 2010 Issue of An Ounce
• Preventing Cancer: A Call to Action
• Canadian Responses to the President’s Cancer Panel
• Cancer Prevention is in our Power
• Why do some people get cancer while others do not?
• Breast Cancer Month – Awareness or Overkill?
• The Story of Cosmetics – What’s Canada’s Story?
• Incineration Update – Fall 2010
• Why I am a Cancer Prevention Activist
• Prevention Shorts

I’ve been working at the General Motors Autoplex in Oshawa since Sept. 1984. I started as a Technician, otherwise known as a car manufacturing assembler, in the Chassis area. The years passed quickly, and, after a divorce in 1999, I was searching for something more to do.

My union, Canadian Auto Workers, gave me the opportunity to take a four-week paid education leave (PEL) at their Family Education Centre in Port Elgin, Ontario. This program focuses on a number of key themes: the union, the workplace, the economy, politics and human rights.

This course opened my eyes wide on many issues. I was hardest hit by the environmental activism of other CAW Locals. Many speakers talked with us about the environment and our Union’s National Prevent Cancer Campaign. Ken Bondy, in particular, spoke passionately about the work that the CAW Windsor Regional Environment Council was doing to Prevent Environmental Cancer. This had me thinking about the family members I had lost to cancer – my Nanny, Grandpa and my Aunt Adele. Could it be due to environmental exposures that we should have prevented? How many more people will die because we can’t make change quickly enough?

One of the projects I did for the course was on water pollution. We did an interview with a CAW Health Safety Coordinator from the Oshawa Truck Plant. From that interview I realized that our local, the largest in Canada, didn’t have an organized Environment Committee, a Regional Environment Council of area locals, or strong union environmental representation in the plant.

The whole time at PEL was spent trying to learn as much as I could, especially about how I could enroll others to make a difference locally. With the approval of my Local’s union leadership and other like minded activists, we founded the CAW Durham Regional Environment Council (CAW D.R.E.C.) representing 10 CAW Locals in 2000. We held our first elections, and I’ve held the president’s position since then. After about a year, we convinced the leadership to form a Local 222 Standing Environment Committee to actively pursue community outreach. By 2002 I was appointed the CAW Environment Representative for the Oshawa car plant and eventually the Oshawa Autoplex.

My learning curve has been massive and ongoing – I attend and participate in conferences, forums, e-mails list serves and education courses to upgrade my knowledge. Outreach and networking invariably bring you to people along the way who influence the direction you take. Two people in particular were Liz Armstrong, one of the original founders of the Run, Walk and Roll for Cancer Prevention (now the Cancer Prevention Challenge) and Loretta Michaud. Both of these women convinced our organization to participate in the raising funds for Cancer Prevention initiatives. The cool thing about the Cancer Prevention Challenge was that groups could ask for 40% (now 80%) of the funds to go directly towards local cancer prevention initiatives.

CAW D.R.E.C. has participated every year since. Our team, the CAW Durham Region Racers, has raised money to provide many educational opportunities for our community.. Our most recent cancer prevention battle has us engaging and collaborating with several community groups to oppose our Regional Municipality’s Environmental Assessment on the use of incineration for its residual waste.

Our next step is to host screenings of documentaries like Living Downstream, Chemerical, etc. to promote community cancer prevention initiatives at town halls, churches, service groups, schools or wherever requested. These events will include guest speakers, Q&A sessions, and materials that include helpful links and information for participants to use. We also plan to invite related organizations to set up display booths.

There is so much more to why cancer prevention in a part of my life. Prevent Cancer Now (PCN) is such a natural fit for me it’s a way to bring the prevention message to a national stage. So please join us by volunteering or contributing in any way you can to help PCN to prevent cancer now!

 
Sincerely,

Dave Renaud
President, CAW Durham Regional Environment Council
www.cawdrec.com

P.S. For more info on the Cancer Prevention Challenge click here.

 
 
Also in this issue on An Ounce …

• Welcome to the Fall 2010 Issue of An Ounce
• Preventing Cancer: A Call to Action
• Canadian Responses to the President’s Cancer Panel
• Cancer Prevention is in our Power
• Why do some people get cancer while others do not?
• Breast Cancer Month – Awareness or Overkill?
• The Story of Cosmetics – What’s Canada’s Story?
• Incineration Update – Fall 2010
• Why I am a Cancer Prevention Activist
• Prevention Shorts