 |
|
.. |
Magazine
|
|
Media coverage encourages us that we are winning the battle against cancer. However, in one decade we saw a 33% rise in cancer incidence from 62,435 new cases in 1990 to 82,185 cases in 1999 (these figures exclude the non-melanoma skin cancers)1 While it remains true that improved treatments have increased the 5 year survival rates by 11%, these statistics can be misleading as the overall mortality rate shows an increase of 2,000 per annum. The official response to this increase in cancer is two-fold: early detection through better screening and a longer life-span account for the apparent rise. However, this doesn’t tally with the statistical analysis that:
While the issues of cause and cure remain clouded it does seem that attention is directed on cure at the expense of what we know about cause. I think we would all agree that it is better to protect against getting cancer in the first place than spend the tens of millions of dollars developing products for treatment after the event. In spite of the thousands of studies and toxicology reports pointing to the carcinogenic effect of chemicals in both animal and in human populations, the scientific consensus is that the increase in chemicals is not responsible for the increase in cancer. With rising cancer statistics it should be getting easier to amass the data, but we find that even though the evidence grows linking cause and effect, under the current self-imposed rules this task becomes impossible. We only have to look as far as the tobacco industry who were able to frustrate any attempt to link their product with lung cancer for over 40 years, and who today can still successfully argue in court that no medical evidence exists to prove that smoking caused the cancer. We all know that synthetic chemicals are for the most part toxic, carcinogenic and incompatible with life – but the contention lies in proving which chemical causes what disease and at what dosage. When we examine the methods of evaluation based on epidemiological studies and animal toxicology research we find that they are not only flawed but also open to abuse by chemical manufacturers. Let’s start with animal studies. The purpose of these studies is to determine the carcinogenicity of a single substance and the dose at which it is likely to become toxic, and to extrapolate from this data the risk to human populations. If the results are unfavourable (to the manufacturer) they may be disregarded on the basis that species sensitivity varies widely (i.e. what may be toxic to rats may not necessarily be toxic to humans) and as the exact position of humans on the sensitivity spectrum is unknown results from animal toxicology may be viewed as meaningless. The second loop-hole lies in the mandatory testing of single chemicals. The chemical that is usually tested is the so-called “active” ingredient – or the one with killing power. However, commercial brands usually contain ingredients, misleadingly called “inert,” which are required to make the product work. Let’s take Roundup as an example. The active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate and the “inert” ingredient is a surfactant known as POEA. Without POEA, the effectiveness of glyphosate is reduced by two-thirds, which makes glyphosate a relatively “harmless” ingredient. However, for a “toxicologically benign” substance the results are worrying. Studies using glyphosate alone indicate increased incidence of liver, thyroid, and testicular cancer in rats, but the Environment Protection Agency in the US do not consider the 12% incidence of testicular cancer in treated animals of statistical significance to the 4.5% incidence in the non-treated group. 3 Manufacturers’ recommendations are based on these studies using glyphosate alone. But we know that Roundup is three times more lethal than glyphosate on its own, because it is the synergistic “mix” of chemicals that cause the problems – not the single component. Furthermore, we have epidemiological evidence that supports a three-fold risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in farm workers using Roundup. These are not isolated findings. It is well-documented that synergy between minute doses of multiple chemicals increases their toxicity – it is the sum of the parts, not the single parts that gives rise to their lethal toxicity. 4 Unfortunately, studies on single chemicals rather than the commercial products are accepted as sufficient evidence for assessing the toxicity of products – as in the case of Roundup which has never been tested in its product form for licensing. The story continues. Glyphosate is persistent and can remain in the soil for up to three years contaminating crops. Its use has more than doubled from 17-20 million kilograms in 1995 to 45 million kilograms in 2001. We have no method of assessing the total residue of Roundup on crops as no government agency has considered the issue of glyphosate on GM crops - thus nobody has included the effects of increasing the use of glyphosate in the risk/benefit analysis carried out on GM crops. 5 So here’s the rub – if GM crops are implicated in degenerative disease, will it be due to:
Will we see nutritional deficiency diseases, toxic diseases or diseases caused through genetic modification – or a combination of all three? We have no way of knowing and nothing in place to determine the safety. Finally we come to determining the toxic dose of a chemical. Epidemiological evidence concentrates on groups exposed to the highest levels of known contaminants such as hospital workers, farmers, carpenters (using treated wood), and those working in the chemical industry. The incidence of disease is noted and compared to the incidence in the general community. A positive correlation will show an increased incidence of disease in the exposed group above a certain threshold, such as the 6 fold risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in agricultural workers using herbicides. However, this does not mean that the product is banned, but may be required to just carry additional warnings. So members of the general public remain unprotected and our exposure will gradually increase over the years until the time arrives when there is no gap in the incidence of cancer in the exposed group and the general public. And perhaps, as past experience has shown us with smoking and asbestos, the onus will be upon the individual/s to prove cause and effect in a court of law to the satisfaction of the medical scientists – if that is ever possible. If you are interested in options for chemical-free management and pesticide free solutions please visit www.pesticides.org/factsheets.html They also have excellent scientific papers on numerous chemicals at http://www.pesticide.org/factsheets.html#pesticides 1 http://www.health.gov.au/pq/canc9er/data.htm 2. http://organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/glyphocancer.cfm 3. http://www.pesticide.org/gly.pdf 4. Colborn, Dumanoski and Myers: Our Stolen Future ISBN 0 349 10878 1 5. http://www.safe2use.com/pesticidenews/roundup.htm
|
|
|||
