Cancer war tells only half of story

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_P
rintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1107384608824&call_pageid=971358637177

ANNE ROCHON FORD AND LIZ ARMSTRONG

There are many good recommendations in the recently launched Canadian
Campaign to Control Cancer.

But there are also critical omissions in the campaign, and its funding
by several leading pharmaceutical corporations should raise some
immediate red flags.

The campaign rightly argues that the death rate from cancer in Canada
could be cut by half. In a country where rates of cancer are at
epidemic levels, this should be more than enough impetus for urgent
action.

Canada's cancer rates are among the worst in the world and this tragic
disease is the number one cause of potential years of life lost in
Canada, according to National Cancer Institute of Canada statistics.
Simply put, more Canadians die from cancer at an earlier age than from
any other cause.

Still, the Campaign to Control Cancer should go much farther.

Of course, more funding and action are needed on cancers linked to
smoking, obesity, and over-exposure to sunlight, as the campaign
states.

And while occupational and environmental carcinogens are mentioned
briefly, there needs to be much more focus and action on these cancer
hazards over which Canadians personally may not have control but
collectively can pressure our politicians and policy-makers to get much
more serious about.

Such hazards include synthetic carcinogens, hormone disruptors and
radionuclides that make their way through the environment, and become
an unwanted "body burden" of toxic substances.

Every Canadian carries such a burden, from the moment of conception
throughout life. With more and more evidence that some cancers begin in
utero, this ought to be at the top of the cancer prevention agenda at
every level of government. It receives very little mention in the
campaign's publicity material.

There also needs to be more focus on reducing or eliminating cancer
hazards in our homes, schools, hospitals and workplaces - including
indoor and outdoor pesticides, cleaning solvents, radon gas,
unnecessary X-rays and even some pharmaceutical drugs.

An additional concern about the new campaign is its main source of
funding, which includes several pharmaceutical companies.

These companies not only profit handsomely from cancer treatments, but
some of their drugs are linked to higher cancer incidence - frequent
use of antibiotics, several anti-depressants and cholesterol lowering
"statins" are among the most recent suspects.

Even more alarming, companies like Glaxo- SmithKline and AstraZeneca,
also have dark sides as polluters, with histories woeful enough to earn
places on top 10 lists of the world's worst corporations. They
contribute to our toxic body burden by polluting our air, water and
soil with poisonous chemicals, including carcinogens.

Of course, we all want to see better control of cancer - who could
argue against that? But there is both a real and perceived conflict of
interest present when the funders will not only profit financially from
the success of this campaign but degrade our environment and threaten
our health at the same time.

Drug companies, like most corporations, do not profit from prevention,
and since they or their subsidiaries produce an array of toxic
chemicals, their role in this campaign is problematic.We applaud any
efforts to bring more attention to the growing incidences of cancer and
the need to alleviate the pain and suffering it causes.

But we also believe the campaign must go much farther: In order to end
the cancer epidemic, the whole picture is needed, and dubious funding
sources only serve to cloud our ability to take action based on this
whole picture.

Liz Armstrong is co-author of the upcoming book, Cancer: 101 Solutions
to a Preventable Epidemic, and co-founder of the Breast Cancer
Prevention Coalition. Anne Rochon Ford is co-ordinator of the national
working group, Women and Health Protection.