Yonit Shames
Published: October 26, 2005
Several recent natural disasters, as well as the war in Iraq, have highlighted American society’s prejudice toward short-term, quick-fix solutions. However, the ill effects of this attitude are not limited to its effects on disaster relief (the government’s lack of preparation for Hurricane Katrina and the resulting catastrophe) nor foreign policy miscalculations (the two and one half years the US military has floundered in chaos and death in Iraq).
Unfortunately, America’s unprecedented rise in cancer has fallen victim to the same mentality. Roughly one in three Americans can expect to become cancer patients in their lifetimes, and childhood cancer rates have risen by more than 20 percent, but we have yet to identify anything more meaningful than possible risk factors for cancer. The American government, notorious for its preference for industry over environmental health, has done virtually nothing to curb industrially-created toxins in our atmosphere, food, water and land. Of the 85,000 synthetic chemicals in commercial use today, more than 90 percent have never been tested for safety, and scores of the ones that have been are confirmed carcinogenics.
Politics have a far larger role in cancer’s case than pure negligence, however.
Cancer organizations or fundraisers are often sponsored by the companies that manufacture treatment drugs or create carcinogenic byproducts.
National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, for example, was created by AstraZeneca, which sells breast cancer treatment drugs. The federal National Cancer Institute, another example, is often led by executives of chemical manufacturers. For instance, the chairman of the National Cancer Advisory Panel in 1990 was also chairman of Occidental Petroleum (which was later ordered to pay the government $227 million to clean up its toxic waste dump in New York).
While it’s well and good that such corporations donate money to cancer research, shouldn’t the conflicts of interest in their involvement in cancer research alarm us as cancer rates continue to skyrocket? And wouldn’t it be far more prolific for cancer victims if they tried to eliminate the disease in the first place?
Even the American Cancer Society has a dubious track record for cancer prevention. For instance, in 1992, the ACS teamed up with the Chlorine Institute to support the continued use of organochlorine pesticides, despite all scientific evidence relating it to the development of breast cancer.
Whether these chemicals truly cause cancer or not is irrelevant; shouldn’t a cancer society err on the side of caution and on the side of the patients it is allegedly trying to aid?
It may be easy for us to accept that diet and lifestyle changes will reduce our risk of developing cancer, but the sad fact is that prevention doesn’t sell; drugs do. Cancer patients- of whom only a small percentage has identifiable risk factors- are victims of policies that must change if we are to win the war against this disease.
Cancer organizations should only win our support if they have our interests at heart, which means that they should be trying to stop cancer’s spread instead of playing politics.
