Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Common Chemicals are Linked to Breast Cancer
Of the 216 compounds, many in the air, food or everyday items.
More than 200 chemicals - many found in urban air and everyday consumer products - cause breast cancer in animal tests, according to a compilation of scientific reports published today.
Writing in a publication of the American Cancer Society, researchers concluded that reducing exposure to the compounds could prevent many women from developing the disease.
The research team from five institutions analyzed a growing body of evidence linking environmental contaminants to breast cancer, the leading killer of U.S. women in their late 30s to early 50s.
Experts say that family history and genes are responsible for a small percentage of breast cancer cases but that environmental or lifestyle factors such as diet are probably involved in the vast majority.
"Overall, exposure to mammary gland carcinogens is widespread," the researchers wrote in a special supplement to the journal Cancer. "These compounds are widely detected in human tissues and in environments, such as homes, where women spend time."
The scientists said data were too incomplete to estimate how many breast cancer cases might be linked to chemical exposures.
But because the disease is so common and the chemicals so widespread, "the public health impacts of reducing exposures would be profound even if the true relative risks are modest," they wrote. "If even a small percentage is due to preventable environmental factors, modifying these factors would spare thousands of women."
The three reports and a commentary were compiled by researchers from the Silent Spring Institute, a women's environmental health organization in Newton, Mass.; Harvard's Medical School and School of Public Health in Boston; the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.; and USC's Keck School of Medicine. Silent Spring Institute Executive Director Julia Brody led the team.
In response to the findings, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a breast cancer prevention group that funded the work, pledged an additional $5 million for developing research tools to root out environmental causes.
Reviewing hundreds of existing studies and databases, the team produced what it called "the most comprehensive compilation to date of chemicals identified as mammary carcinogens." No new chemical testing was conducted for the reports.
The researchers named 216 chemicals that induce breast tumors in animals. Of those, people are highly exposed to 97, including industrial solvents, pesticides, dyes, gasoline and diesel exhaust compounds, cosmetics ingredients, hormones, pharmaceuticals, radiation, and a chemical in chlorinated drinking water.
"Almost all of the chemicals were mutagenic, and most caused tumors in multiple organs and species; these characteristics are generally thought to indicate likely carcinogenicity in humans, even at lower exposure levels," they reported.
For many of the compounds, the federal government has not used animal breast cancer data when conducting human risk assessments, which are the first step toward regulating chemicals or in setting occupational standards to protect workers. Companies are not required to screen women who work with the chemicals for breast cancer.
"Regulators have not paid much attention to potential mammary carcinogens," the researchers wrote.
Toxicologists say that other mammals, such as rats and mice, often develop the same tumors as humans do, and that animal tests are efficient means of testing the effects of chemicals. Environmental regulators, however, often want conclusive human data before taking action.
Animal studies generally use high doses of a substance to simulate a lifetime of exposure, and then the results are extrapolated to the lower levels that people are exposed to.
Ana Soto, a Tufts University professor of cell biology who specializes in cellular origins of cancer and effects of hormone-disrupting contaminants, said there probably was a link between breast cancer and exposures to chemicals in the environment, particularly early in life.
"I cannot say I'm convinced, but what I can say is that it's a very likely, very plausible hypothesis," said Soto, who did not participate in the new research. "More and more, cancer looks like an environmental disease."
Twenty-nine of the chemicals are produced in volumes exceeding 1 million pounds annually in the United States.
Seventy-three are present in consumer products or are food contaminants - 1,4-dioxane in shampoos, for example, or acrylamide in French fries. Thirty-five are common air pollutants, 25 are in workplaces where at least 5,000 women are employed, and 10 are food additives, according to the reports.
There are probably many more than 216, the research team said, because only about 1,000 of the 80,000 chemicals registered for use in the United States have been tested on animals to see whether they induce cancerous tumors or mutate DNA. Such tests cost $2 million each.
Because epidemiological studies are difficult to conduct and full of uncertainties, human data are "still relatively sparse," the researchers wrote. Only 152 studies worldwide have examined whether women exposed to contaminants are more likely to have breast cancer - compared with nearly 1,500 that have explored the links between diet and the disease - and most of the 216 carcinogens were not included.
"Despite this large remaining gap, research in the last five years has strengthened the human evidence that environmental pollutants play a role in breast cancer risk," the researchers wrote. They said the existing studies suggested "substantial public health impact."
Human evidence is particularly strong for PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls - compounds widely used in the 1940s to late 1970s that still contaminate fish and other foods - and for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, found in diesel and gasoline exhaust.
Solvents in dry cleaning, aircraft maintenance and other jobs also may increase breast cancer risk.
Some of the chemicals named as breast carcinogens already are regulated to protect public health, but some, particularly those in consumer products, are not.
The scientists conducted the review hoping to lay the groundwork for new human studies, as well as to persuade regulators to use existing animal data to strengthen regulations and require more testing of chemicals.
"Animal models are the primary means of understanding and anticipating effects of chemicals in humans," they wrote. "All known human carcinogens ... are also carcinogenic in animals."
Emerging evidence suggests that the roots of breast cancer are in infancy or the womb. More animal and human research should focus on such early exposure, said Patricia Hunt, a Washington State University School of Molecular Biosciences professor.
But Hunt and Soto urged society not to wait for scientific proof to reduce exposure to the chemicals.
"When you look at their list of chemicals, we are exposed to all of it," Soto said. "We know humans are exposed to mixtures, and studying mixtures is very difficult. We will never have the whole picture, and it will take many, many years to collect epidemiological evidence, so we should take some preventive measures now."
Although virtually all women are exposed to the chemicals, some may be more susceptible because of differing metabolism or ability to repair DNA.
Breast cancer is probably triggered by an interaction of multiple environmental and genetic factors.
Experts have long suspected diet plays a role. But the new research found "no association that is consistent, strong and statistically significant" for any particular foods raising or reducing breast cancer risk. There is substantial evidence, however, that regularly consuming alcohol, being obese and being sedentary increase risk.
About 178,000 new cases will be diagnosed this year in the United States.
The reports are at http://www.silentspring.org/sciencereview .
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times
12 Comments so far
Show All"But the new research found "no association that is consistent, strong and statistically significant" for any particular foods raising or reducing breast cancer risk.
I guess the "new" research left out some of the "old" research about carcinogens that other researchers have known about for decades.
If you haven't already read, "NATURAL CURES They Don't Want You To Know About", by Kevin Trudeau, add it to your "must read" list.
Lots of chemicals are Aryl Hydrocarbon receptor agonists. Try resveratrol. (Until we can clean this place up.)
Why test animals when there are so many Republicans?
In 1992, on the front page of the Saint Cloud Times, was a small news box at the bottom. It said that two researchers had written a book on breast cancer and that 70% of all breast cancers came from wearing bras. I waited to see if the televison newscasts would bring it up, but it was buried as soon as it was published! THis is because we live in patriarchal and sub-patriarchal cultures who still view women as property and who's "chasity" must be preserved to "keep the property valuable," thus the sexual parts to their bodies must be covered up. Wearing bras is about the control of women by men and the institutions of male society.
The name of this book is called DRESSED TO KILL and the authors are Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer. I know too many women who have died from breast cancer when it was so easily preventable. I'll put an exerpt below. Maybe it will save some women's lives and maybe it will WAKE UP THE VILLAGE so this book doesn't disappear forever...
From http://www.selfstudycenter.org/dressedtokill.htm
When Soma and I did our research for Dressed To Kill we were not aware of how easily women can recover from fibrocystic breast disease by foregoing the bra. Bras, by their very design, alter the shape of the breasts for fashion. To alter breast shape you have to apply constant pressure on the breast tissue. That is why bras are elastic garments. This pressure from the bra impedes the circulation in the breast tissue, specifically, the circulation of the lymphatic system. This system is composed of microscopic vessels that originate in the breast tissue and drain the tissue of fluid, which is directed through these vessels to the lymph nodes. The lymphatic vessels are extremely thin and small, and have no pump, such as the heart, to propel its contents forward. As a result, lymphatic vessels are easily constricted by external pressure, such as that applied to the breast tissue constantly by the brassiere. It is compression of these lymph vessels that prevents the proper draining of the breast tissue, leading to fluid accumulation in the breast. Medically, this is called lymphedema of the breast, secondary to constriction from the bra. This fluid accumulation leads to breast tenderness and pain, and ultimately the fluid develops into cysts. The cysts over time become hard, and we have a picture of the creation of fibrocystic breast disease. Within days or weeks of ending breast constriction by bras, the breast tissue is allowed to flush out this excess fluid, cysts disappear, and breast pain and tenderness are minimal if at all present. From our research with hundreds of women, getting rid of the bra has resulted in remarkable recovery of breast health in over 95% of the cases. Since foregoing the bra for a month is cost-free and risk-free, and may prove beneficial, we encourage all women who wear bras to partake in a self-study to see for themselves, on themselves, whether their bras have been damaging their breasts. Keep in mind that breast disease is only a problem in bra wearing cultures. Women who are bra-free have the same breast cancer incidence as men. And don't wait for the cancer detection and treatment industry to endorse this information before you try it. Billions of dollars are made each year treating breast cancer. Nobody will make money by women loosening up to prevent this disease. The prevention of breast disease is up to each individual woman. Just stop binding the breasts with bras in the name of fashion, and begin to love yourself and respect your body.
I still keep thinking about the important information contained in that book DRESSED TO KILL and realize that many ignorant women died from breast cancer since it's publication or are forming breast cancer now because they were ignorant of the book and it's important facts. The authors, a medical doctor and a social anthropologist proved there was a link between bras and cancer!!! Their book came out in 1992 and it and their research was basically ignored by the press.
And it all goes back to the control of women. The culture of men would rather see their mothers, wives, daughters, sisters die from a preventable disease than go against the hidden "taboos" and rules of society. Don't believe me? A man can walk down any street in America without his shirt on, nipples exposed to everyone and he's committed no crime. If a woman goes shirtless anywhere in America, she will be arrested for "indecency." Janet Jackson's nipple caused an "outrage" but where is the "outrage" when you see lots of shirtless athletes in the locker room.
For the Love of God, Someone get the MESSAGE OUT that the majority of breast cancer is caused by wearing bras, and it is exacerbated by tight or ill-fitting ones.
Read more about how the Savage Society kills it's own: http://hiddenmurder.blogspot.com
Given this information, shouldn't the bulk of funding for cancer research be shifted to rooting out environmental causes and fighting for regulation? Shouldn't all the folks running for cures, wearing pink ribbons, etc, be backing environmental legislation?
It certainly would be nice if they had a LIST of all the chemicals. But in normal LA Times reporting fashion, this potentially helpful list is ignored or omitted.
Linda, email Marla Cone...her link is at the bottom of the article. If we all email her maybe she will post them for us! Donna
In Canada anyway, our Cancer Society is only mandated to study certain things that favour Big Pharma. No research is done on any prevention,
"natural" cures or vitamin therapies, etc. because they don't really want to learn how to prevent the disease that funds such a
very profitable industry as the Cancer Society.
The for profit agenda of big pharma is such that MANY conditions that could be cured are left as is and treated on maintenance programs that basically deal with symptoms management rather than regaining health. The issue about the bra, added to the toxicity of our environments, the very elements awash in a medley of chemical polymers unknown to nature or those elemental systems that might otherwise break these substances down, added to dietary stimulants like excess sugar, white flour, etc are some of the collective cause factors. As for the chemical aspect, in a climate of trespassers, it is difficult to establish culpability because the burden of proof in association with any singular contributor is muddied by the competing players (i.e. toxic factors). Like the old Levy's rye bread commercial it comes down to, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature." Estrogen simulators are another no no that's causin genetic change in amphibians who live and reproduce in the industrial run off cum water. SAD.
in the same spirit i would like to add that i have recently heard about a large test that shows that vitamin d is much more effective in reducing recurrence of breast cancer than tamoxifen.
Guess what!, there are a lot of other chemicals and a lot of other cancers. Most of us eat grilled or charred or smoked food; as someone with a biology degree, I would strongly caution that these things almost certainly case many thousands of cases of cancer.
We're all bombarded with food colors and fragrances, very un-necessarily.
When I was in my first college level chem lab we worked with a chemical called "butter yellow" We were advised that it was highly carcinogenic, and, that it was called by that name because it has been put in butter as a food coloring. Red meat increases risk of colon cancer by 2x; processed meat: cold-cuts sausage increases cancer risk by a much higher level.
We, I'm certain, know only the tip of the iceberg about carcinogens in our envionment. I'm sure the bushies aren't looking, and would probably surpress the fidings anyway.
Don't worry though, the free market will solve all of this. I'm not quite sure how this works, I guess by killing off people who consume too much of this stuff. Humm, sounds like Darwin and I know a lot of bushies "don't believe" in that. Oh, well!
Comment: the overall accuracy of the human race ranges at about 45% (5% to 65% at times). Of course the accuracy depends on the goal.. W's accuracy for doing what is good for the country and the future, is perhaps 0.5%.
His accuracy for the 1% most wealthy is about 35% -- 'cause with the increasing population and decreasing resources; there can be no future for anyone--sorry to bring up this minor point ;-(
Barbara