Latest from the Pesticide Action Network’s Weekly News Update on Pesticides, Health and Alternatives: Syngenta science debunked; U.S. pledges global GMO push; Persistent chemicals policy up; Bee colonies still declining…
In 2008 a group of scientists associated with Syngenta published a review of atrazine’s effects on aquatic animals which concluded that, “Based on a weight of evidence analysis of all of the data, the central theory that environmentally relevant concentrations of atrazine affect reproduction and/or reproductive development in fish, amphibians, and reptiles is not supported by the vast majority of observations.” However, in early 2010 independent scientists from the University of South Florida (USF) published an article drawing very different conclusions. A new paper by the USF team investigates the discrepancy, finding that the Syngenta-sponsored review is systematically biased and factually incorrect. (Syngenta is the main producer and defender of atrazine.) The USF scientists meticulously document (PDF) 122 “inaccuracies” and twenty-two “misleading statements” in the review. All of the misleading statements and 117 of the inaccuracies favor Syngenta, downplaying atrazine’s harms. In addition, the Syngenta paper “criticize[d] or cast doubts on the validity” of 94% of the studies that found adverse effects, versus only 3% of those studies that didn’t.
According to Science News, the USF scientists were motivated to take a second look at the Syngenta-sponsored science after discovering that some of their own work had been mischaracterized in it. Coauthor Jason Rohr told PhysOrg.com: “The goal of the paper was to educate scientists, natural resource managers, policymakers and judicial officials on the potential impacts of conflicts of interests, and how to identify and reduce them.” The paper makes several recommendations for reducing the deleterious effects of conflicts of interest, including that “No chemical should be approved for sale or use without toxicity testing, and federal approval to sell a product should not be based on product safety research conducted by the producing or affiliated companies. Companies should be required to provide funds to the regulatory agency to study the safety of its product.” Under current systems, chemical companies conduct health and safety studies on their own products.
In related news, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released new analysis of the water monitoring study that EPA required Syngenta to undertake as a condition of allowing atrazine to stay on the market. NDRC’s new report looks at recent data, finding that “of the 153 water systems that were sampled between 2005 and 2008, 100 … had spikes of atrazine in their untreated water that exceeded [the federal standard] of 3 ppb. Two-thirds of these 100 systems had spikes of atrazine greater than 3 ppb in the treated water.”
More, with links on the Pesticide Action Network’s weekly bulletin, HERE
And,
Editorial in the Lancet today on the Presidential Cancer Panel report.
“The Obama administration should not divert its existing cancer prevention resources from the definite big causes of cancer in place to small potential ones. Cancer prevention must remain a top priority for the soon to be appointed director of the US National Cancer Institute. The federal government should impose and enforce stronger environmental laws which will decrease regulatory complexity, reduce industry’s influence, and encourage research directed toward the health effects of low doses of a combination agents. US citizens, in the meantime, should take an active approach toward a healthy lifestyle and the protection of the food, water, and air that they consume.”
Preventable cancer in the USA
Cancer is the USA’s number two killer, after heart disease. Every year, there are 1•5 million new cancer cases and 560 000 cancer deaths in the country. During a lifespan, 41% of the US population will develop cancer and 21% will die from cancer.
Tobacco remains the single greatest cause of death from cancer. Even though tobacco consumption in the USA has been falling in recent decades, smoking is still responsible for around a third of all cancer deaths in the USA (and tobacco causes even more deaths from diseases other than cancer). The recent smoke-free initiatives in particular parts of the USA, as well as the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (that gave the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] regulatory authority to control tobacco products’ content, marketing, and sales), are welcome efforts to further tackle tobacco consumption. However, the USA still remains one of the last big countries yet to sign the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control treaty.
An estimated 6% of US cancer deaths (34 000 per year) are attributable to occupational and environmental risk factors. These toxic chemicals and environmental pollutants are found in the air, water, home, and workplace. Radon, for example, comes from the soil. It is the second leading cause of lung cancer in people who never smoked. Those who smoke and are exposed to radon have a higher risk of lung cancer than from either exposure alone. Even though the Indoor Radon Abatement Act of 1988 set a national goal of reducing radon concentrations in buildings, no US regulation yet mandates specific radon levels for indoor residential buildings. Only a few states so far require radon testing in schools and day-care facilities. And up to 6% of US homes are estimated to have radon concentrations above recommended levels.
This year’s annual report from the Presidential Cancer Panel
Currently, there are 80 000 chemicals on the market in the USA. But only about 200 of these common chemicals have been tested for safety because, under current policy, the US Environmental Protection Agency can only call for a compound’s safety to be addressed when evidence surfaces to show that it is dangerous. This loophole will be closed by the Safe Chemicals Act
Infants and children, the report states, are the groups most susceptible to environmental pollutants because they weigh less, develop faster than adults, retain active toxic chemicals for longer, and their developing brains are more vulnerable to exposure to chemicals. More than 300 industrial chemicals have been found in umbilical-cord-blood. Thus babies are said to be born pre-polluted.
The report additionally gives special attention to exposure hazards from medical sources. People in the USA are estimated to receive nearly half their lifetime radiation exposure through medical imaging. Recently, the FDA, to minimise that exposure, proposed new safety requirements for manufacturers of CT scanners and fluoroscopic devices. Pharmaceutical byproducts have also become a major source of environmental contamination when they enter the water supply after being excreted or improperly disposed of.
The Obama administration should not divert its existing cancer prevention resources from the definite big causes of cancer in place to small potential ones. Cancer prevention must remain a top priority for the soon to be appointed director of the US National Cancer Institute. The federal government should impose and enforce stronger environmental laws which will decrease regulatory complexity, reduce industry’s influence, and encourage research directed toward the health effects of low doses of a combination agents. US citizens, in the meantime, should take an active approach toward a healthy lifestyle and the protection of the food, water, and air that they consume.
For *Doll and Peto’s paper on avoidable risks of cancer in the USA* see /J Natl Cancer Inst/ 1981; *66:* 1191—308.
For *Peto et al’s paper on worldwide tobacco mortality* see /Lancet/ 1992; *339:* 1268—78.
