The true burden of cancer caused by carcinogens in the environment is largely underestimated and understudied says a new report released by an expert panel that advises the US President.

You can download a PDF version of the full 240-page report “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now” that was released today by the US President’s Cancer Panel (PCP), a body set up in the 1970s to monitor and report on the National Cancer Program.

The PCP concluded that even though we don’t currently have proof of the full extent of the harm they can do, the number of known and suspected carcinogens in our environment is growing, and we need to act now.

“There remains a great deal to be done to identify the many existing but unrecognized environmental carcinogens and eliminate those that are known from our daily lives – our workplaces, schools and homes,” said Dr LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr, who chairs the PCP.

Every day, millions of Americans are exposed to up to 80,000 of currently marketed chemicals, many of which are unregulated and either not studied at all or poorly researched.

Yet exposure to potential carcinogens is widespread, and the average person in the street is unaware of what they are, and what levels they are exposed to, including chemicals such as radon (a naturally occuring radioactive gas that can accumulate in buildings and basements), formaldehyde (although this compound can occur naturally, it is primarily a concern for workers in the many industries that use or make it) and benzene (occurs naturally and as a result of man-made products: main sources are tobacco smoke, and exhaust fumes, although soil and water contamination are also a concern).

Another growing potential source, ironically, is the increasingly widespread use of imaging technology for the diagnosis of diseases like cancer: many health professionals and patients are largely unaware of the radiation dose associated with single tests and from cumulative exposure and what this can do to their lifetime cancer risk, said the PCP report.

Another cause for concern is the failure to properly assess environmental exposure, for instance by not considering what equipment or chemicals patients may be exposed to at work or in the home, overlooks what could be a valuable source of information to help diagnosis, said the panel.

Military use of chemicals and equipment is another largely unknown area in terms of how much it contributes to environmental cancer risk: the panel cites examples of sites in the US and overseas, including abandoned ones, where the contamination has spread by wind and through drinking water supplies.

The PCP concluded that people don’t know enough about the extent of their exposure to environmental carcinogens or the health problems they may present: the federal response has not been good enough, they stressed, urging government, industry, research, health care, and advocacy bodies to take concrete steps to reduce people’s exposure by:

  • Doing more, better, and broader research into the effect of environmental contaminants on human health.

  • Raising people’s awareness of environmental cancer risks: including those working in the health care industry.

  • Improving understanding about and reporting of known exposures.

  • Eliminating unnecessary medical tests that expose people to radiation and ensuring doses are as low as test quality permits.

  • Robustly addressing the environmental toxicity caused by the military, and associated health problems, both for service personnel and civilians.

  • Develop a comprehensive and cohesive policy agenda, bring in stronger regulation of and safer alternatives to, potentially cancer-causing environmental chemicals.

The PCP said that there are as many opportunities to intervene, change and prevent, as there are to cause harm through environmental exposure, and thereby reduce the national cancer burden and secure the health of future generations.

“Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now.”
The President’s Cancer Panel, Annual Report 2008-2009, April 2010.

Source: PR Newswire.

Written by: Catharine Paddock, PhD