|
The Sad Truth about the Stark
Rise in Childhood Cancer
Reprinted from The Chicago Tribune issue June 17, 2003
By Samuel S. Epstein and Quentin D. Young. Dr. Samuel S. Epstein
is chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and professor emeritus
of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of
Illinois.
When it comes to the safety of children, Americans are among
the most cautious parents in the world. We strap our kids into
helmets and kneepads before letting them coast down the block
on their bikes. We cover electrical outlets with plastic caps
and make sure vehicle safety seats are securely installed, backward-facing
until our babies toddle past their first birthdays. When they
venture off to school, we teach our children not to speak to strangers,
about "bad touches" and how to dial 911.
Yet when it comes to preventing the disease most likely to kill
children, we seem to be at a loss. Childhood cancer now strikes
about 9,000 kids under the age of 15 yearly, with about 1,500
deaths.
What's more, children are more likely than adults to have developed
advanced cancer by the time they are diagnosed. A startling 80
percent show signs at diagnosis that the disease has spread elsewhere
in the body. Just how old are these children when diagnosed with
cancer? The median age is 6.
Making matters worse, the number of children diagnosed with cancer
each year has been rising dramatically. From 1975 to 2000, childhood
cancers increased by 32 percent--36 percent in African-Americans--making
cancer the biggest health threat to our children, second only
to accidents in its lethal impact. Specifically, acute childhood
lymphocytic leukemia is up 57 percent; brain cancer, 50 percent;
kidney cancer, 48 percent; and bone cancer, 29 percent.
Sadly, many of these cancers could have been avoided. But parents
remain uninformed about the wide range of carcinogenic exposures
that pervade the landscape of our children's lives, seeping into
their bodies through contaminated drinking water, chemically preserved
wooden playground sets, pediatric prescription drugs--even the
flea collar around Fido's neck. Making matters worse, parents
have been kept in the dark about their own ability to help protect
children from these dangerous exposures.
Why? Because the federal National Cancer Institute and the non-profit
American Cancer Society have never warned the public about the
numerous consumer products and other common exposures that can
cause cancer in children, and also lead to cancer in later life.
They have also failed to warn the public that the incidence of
childhood cancer has been rising steadily for more than two decades.
The public has an undeniable right to know that there is strong
reputable science that links childhood cancers to exposures of
the fetus, infants and children. These avoidable exposures fall
into four main categories: environmental (e.g., pesticides in
drinking water and baby food and from urban and school spraying
of pesticides); occupational (e.g. maternal exposure during pregnancy
to carcinogens in the workplace); domestic and household (e.g.,
nitrite-preserved hot dogs, pesticide use in the home and lawn
and shampoos and lotions with carcinogenic ingredients); and medical
(e.g., Ritalin, commonly prescribed for attention deficit disorders).
Notwithstanding substantial contrary evidence, the ACS dismisses
cancer risks from exposure to dietary pesticides, hazardous waste
sites, and radiation from nuclear power plants as "negligible."
The ACS 2003 "Cancer Facts & Figures," in its section
on childhood cancer, makes no reference at all to any causes.
The NCI takes the same head-in-the-sand approach. "The causes
of childhood cancer are largely unknown," the federal organization
flatly asserts. Never mind that this simply isn't so.
The failure of the NCI and ACS to inform the nation of the risks
from carcinogenic exposures has also resulted in a failure to
regulate such exposures. For example, the Environmental Protection
Agency's Scientific Advisory Board is now developing new guidelines
for regulating risks from "early-life exposure to carcinogens.
However, the EPA is only considering isolated risks of individual
carcinogens in air and water, rather than assessing their multiple
and cumulative impact, besides numerous unrelated exposures to
carcinogens under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration
and other regulatory agencies.
Because of their smaller size, lower body weight, and faster
metabolism, children, infants, and, even more so, the fetus, are
far more vulnerable to carcinogenic and toxic exposures than adults--a
fact recognized by President Bush during his candidacy but apparently
forgotten once he took office. At that point, federal spending
for children's health programs at the EPA fell by a solid--and
shameful--10 percent.
The lack of research and public information stems not from a
lack of resources, but from imbalanced national policies. Since
passage of the 1971 National Cancer Act, which called on NCI to
undertake research and provide the public with information on
the causes and prevention of cancer, its annual budget has escalated
to $4.6 billion from $220 million. While NCI's budget was growing,
so, paradoxically, was the incidence of childhood cancer, along
with non-smoking related adult cancers. Yet NCI spends less than
4 percent of its $4.6 billion budget for research and public information
on avoidable causes of cancer, while the ACS spends less than
1 percent of its $800 million from public support (excluding income
from government grants and investments from $1 billion reserves)
on environmental and other causes. The overwhelming majority of
NCI and ACS funds are dedicated to screening, diagnosis and treatment
of cancer--obviously worthy pursuits, but ones that would become
much less crucial were they to devote more equitable resources
to prevention and public education.
Parents cannot protect their children from threats they know
little or nothing about. Clearly, the time for open public debate
and congressional oversight of national cancer policy is long
over-due.
Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune
|