Document Evam7yGRw8RxvpLoLMmnv9LK4

breast uancer: The Chlorine Connection fiy fo m D'Argoaiht Jth-Titantlon, Greenfimcc Qthrine C am p aig n As the tide o f chemicals born o f the Industrial Age has arisen to engulfour environment, a drastic change has come about in the nature of the most serious public health problems. For the first time in the history o f the world, every hum an being is now subject to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment o f conception until death. --racheicarson, s/uotspring, m 2 Two years after Rachel Carson wrote these words Inher groundbreaking book,Silent Spring, she died of breast cancer. Three decades later, pollution of the global environment and our bodies has grown more severe. Simultaneously, breast cancer is now the leading cause of death for women between the ages of 40and 55. Breast cancer rates have risen steadily since the dawn of the chemical age: From 1940 to 1982, breast cancer rates increased by 12 percent each year. But more recently," rates have skyrocketed. From 1980 to 1987 alone, the number of breast cancer cases reported in the US. rose by 32 percoiL The disease kills almost 50,000 women in the ' US. alone each year. Fifty years ago, one in 20 women got breast cancer. Today, a woman has a one-in-eight chance of getting breast cancer during her lifetime. The breast cancer epidemic is not unique to the U S Breast cancer incidence is growing rapidly in virtually all of the world's industrialized countries. In 1980, 560,000women died ofbreast cancer world wide. By the year 2000, that figure is expect ed to double. The spread of breast cancer is mirrored by rapid increases since the 1950s in a number of other cancers, such as cancer of the testis, prostate, kidney, skin, and lung, as well as malignant myeloma, nonHodgkins' lymphoma, and numerous child hood cancers. . What is the cause of this cancer epi demic? Scientific evidence suggests that can- k cer is, in large part, an environmental * disease. As far back as 1964, the World Health Organization stated that 80 percent o f cancers w ere d u e to synthetic carcin o gens. But the powerful "cancer establish ment"--the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and a number of research and care institutions, all funded and influenced in part by the chemical and pharmaceutical industries--would have us believe that the cause is primarily personal. If we only modify our habits, they suggest, we can prevent cancer, eat right, don't smoke or drink, and stay out of the sun. The debate over "personal vs. environ mental" causes has reached a fever pitch in the breast cancer arena. The cancer estab lishment officially recognizes only three major risk factors forbreast cancer, a history of breast cancer in the family; hormonal and reproductive factors--such as early age at menarche, late age at childbirth, and high exposures to natural or synthetic estrogens; and a fatty diet The case for the first two is quite strong, but tite role of flitin foods remains controversial and scientists have not shown that it is a significant risk factor in isolation from the chemicals that contami nate the fat Even so, these "personal" causes do not, in themselves, explain the breast cancer epidemic In fact the three established per sonal risk factors account for only 20 to 30 percent of all incidents ofbreast cancer. The vast majority of breast cancer cases--70 to 80 percent--do not fall into any of these ,, three risk categories. It is in this category that the scientific evidence points to what women's cancer activists had suspected all The world's largest hazardous waste incinerator tri East Liverpool is stilt burning, but this WhiteHouse protest by Greenpeace and community activists did gamer national press and presidential attention, resulting in new policies on incineration. (See p. 3) along: breast cancer is an environmental dis ease. Evidence of the environmental connec tion to breast cancer abounds. Especially suspect are the organochlorines, a class of chemicals made from chlorine which reached large-scale production during World War IL DDT, PCBs and dioxin are some of the more notorious of the thou sands of organochlorines, all of which tend to be highly toxic and persistent. Some organochlorines, such as vinyl (or "P1VC"), the largest single use of chlorine in the world, and certain pesticides and solvents, are manufactured intentionally. Others, such as dioxin, axe formed as accidental byproducts of industrial processes based cm chlorine; Papa*bleaching, the making of cer tain synthetic chemicals, the incineration of chlorine-containing waste--all produce . dioxin byproducts. Becauseorganochlorines tend to resist degradation and accumulate in the fatty tis sues of living things, hundreds can now be found anywhere on Earth--from the Arctic to the rainforests of Brazil. Organochlorines have contaminated our bodies as well: 177 different organochlorines have been detect ed in tiie fat, blood, mother's milk, semen. and breath of US. and Canadian residents. Once in the body, organochlorines have been shown to cause cancer--some linked directly to breast cancer--by creating genet ic mutations, disrupting natural controls in cell growth and division, and suppressing the immune system. And many organochlo rines are known to mimic or interfere with thebody's natural sex hormones, including estrogen. Disruption of hormone regula tion--especially of estrogen--is a well-rec ognized breast cancer risk factor. A new Greenpeace report, "Breast Cancer and the Environment The Chlorine Connection," documents the following: Womenexposed to higher-than-normal levels of organochlorines in the workplace have been found to have very high rates of breast cancer.. Women with breast cancer tend to have higher levels of organochlorines in their breast tissues than women who do not have . breast cancer. For decades, breast cancer rates and oiganochlorihe pesticide contamination in ' Israel were among tire worst in the world. 4 Following an aggressive phase-out program for several carcinogenic pesticides in the (continuedon page2, column 2) Cancer, Anyone? "TTie U.S. Environm enlal Protection I"Agency announced in early M aythat it' will no longer allow em ergency exemptions for pesticides that violate the Delaney Clause. Enacted in 1958, Delaney prohibits Food and Drug Administration approval of any food additive found to cause o n c e r in hum ans or animals. A federal appeals court ruled in July 1992 that the EPA m ust cancel cancer-causing pesticides found in processed food like ketchup or applesauce, because this violates the clause. ^Lobbyists for the food chemicals indus try have responded to the ruling by trying to elim inate D elaney during this session of Congress. They argue that Delaney should be replaced with a "one-in-a-million" cancer risk standard. The Delaney Clause is exceptionally im portant because it is the only "zero toler ance" standard for carcinogens in US. law. Rather than elim inate it, environm entalists are working to add new provisions. We want to prohibit the application of carcino genic pesticides in the agricultural sector-- extending Delaney's reach to include both raw and processed foods--as well as in the non-agricultural sector. W e also w ant to strengthen the federal law with additional controls on pesticides tliat interfere w ith the immune, reproductive, endocrine, and ner vous systems. .*u m rm (continuedfrom page 1) mid-1970s, however, contamination dropped quickly to the levels found in other countries, and breast cancer rates followed by dropping significantly over the next decade, especially am ong younger women. Organochlorines are not the only envi ronmental cause of breast cancer, however. Radioactive fallout from above-ground nudear testing, exposure to other toxic chemicals, and horm ones added to meat and dairy products may also have con tributed to the rise in breast cancer cases. But the scientific evidence on organochlo rines and breast cancer is compelling. APrescriptionforPrevention: TheChlorinePhase-Out O ver the last 20 years, a few organochlorines have been banned or restricted. But thousands are still being pro1 duced, and thousands m ore--like dioxin-- continue to be produced unintentionally whenever chlorine is used. Regulating th e e chemicals, one by one, w ould take centuries. A m ore practical solution to the problem w ould be to phase out organochlorines as a group, w ith chlorine--the chemical build ing block of them all--specifically targeted for elimination. This is the approach recommended in ask m e about iwt> WOHEH UNBBtSO! -.ME ask HE . about. gfA S ASKME lWC; ABOUT c AKCER efiux[cancer* IBB^apoverty. r^SKMEH' ABourouRi iNAnMAL^ tohck m (A m EWSwBs i E i f f BRf -Thornton. Send S5 to: GriYirjwir. 10)7 Wot ftftfcs! Pii'.f . Chicago. IL60607. 1991 J in 3: Women With Gmcer Cotfront A n tytiim u e, .third by Judy Brady. Cleis Press. . TheCancerIndustry, bu RrtipfiMuss, Pdrtfwti 1loitfc. Nr.r York 1989. 1992 by the International joint Com mission (IJQ on the Great Lakes, a governmentappointed international advisory body. Motivated primarily by the threat these chemicals pose to health of the Greats Lakes ecosystem, the IJC specifically called u p o n Canada an d the U-S. to develop timetables to phase out all industrial uses of chlorine and chlorine-containing compounds. President Clinton has yet to respond to this recommendation. Alternatives are available now for all major uses of chlorine. Responding to inter national m om entum to achieve a global chlorine-free society, several European countries are already leading the w ay in implementing chlorine-free substitutes for bleaching in the paper industry and for PVC in construction, packaging, and cars. Many U 5. companies and formers have already found that safer substitutes for chlo . rinated solvents and pesticides not only .work, but save money, too. Though the evidence is not scientifical ly conclusive, it is strong enough to warrant a precautionary approach: If w e are to win the battle against breast cancer, steps must be taken now toward the elimination of organochlorines. Resources: BreastCancerand ttteEnvironment: Vw Oiforate Connection (SecondEdition},A GreenvoceRqxirt byJoe Newsletter Editor Daphne Wyshairr Production: Rock Creek Publishing;Intern: Sean Clark. US. Offices CUtano: 1017 West Jackson BM^Ctucauo. I I 60607,317-6663305. Seattle: 4649 Surmyslda five. N, Seattle. WA93103,206632-4376, San Frandxco; 139Towraend S i. San Francisco, CA 94107.4165179 0 , NewYork: 467 Broadway. NewYork. MY100113,217-9*10994, Editorial Orttcv (USheadquartersT 1436 UStreet. NVV. Washington, DC30009.207-462-1177 TTY702-319-7*95 (US only). Retail Outlet*: 100 N La Cienegalos Angeies. CA900*8. 316657-5938; 890 Worth Point. San FrarKracaCA 94109.415-47* 1870. Moving? Duplicates?Send your (restingtatsetwith your to'-red address to: OonoisSvts. 1*36U St."ffW. Washington. OC20009 Giewpeacers an international enwronmental group with offices in Argentina. Australia. Austria. Belgium. Erwd. Canada. Costa Rica, Denmark, Fintand, France. Germany. Grece. Ireland. Italy. Japan. Luxembourg, the Netherlands. NewZealand. Norway. Russia. Spam. Sweden, Switadand. Tunisia. UViame. tteUmted Kingdom and pie ILS. To receive the quarterly rewsiyrei and support Greenpeace (a non-profit organization) wt request an annual donation ol S3C. m .Donations are not tax-deductible For more ntorniabon write to us at 1436 U Si. Washington. DC70009