Healthy Skepticism Library item: 798

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Rochon-Ford A, Armstrong L.
Cancer war tells only half of story
Toronto Star 2005 Feb 3

Full text:

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.