Document Rj99En117aeQ5aDmav3N59MmX

:ifi 1X The equation is simple, insists toxicologist Samuel Epstein: Chemicals -- more than diet and cigarets -- are killing us % By DOUGLAS ILKA N*wn SUIT Writer ITH his thinning hair, gold-rim- **. t- * Wmed glasses and professorial air,** . Dr. Samuel S. Epstein hardly looks the part of a man who has taken on * ' much of the world's scientific, industrial and political communities in an attempt to pinpoint what really causes cancer. But at 55, Dr. Epstein obviously relishes his public advocacy role. Fourteen floors up into the polluted atmosphere he so desperately wants to clean up, he pauses in his "Gold Coast" apartment on Chicago's upper north side to ponder questions on his favorite sub ject The answers come with meticulous precision in a British accent muted from Dr. Samuel S. Epstein yean of consultation with American re searchers, labor leaden and political activists. Contrary to what some recent studies seem to indicate, cancer, be insists, is not caused by nearly everything around us. Instead, he says, it is caused by a relative ly small number of chemical contami nants occurring at certain industrial sites or distributed throughout the environ ment by such processes as industrial pollution. Dr. Epstein is an internationally recog nized expert on toxicology and chemical carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). He has served since 1975 as professor of occu pational and environmental medicine at the School of Public Health, University of Illinois at the Medical Center, Chicago. He holds multiple medical degrees from the University of London and has had 250 scientific papers published. His The Polities of Cancer was a 1977 Sierra Club book selection which com bined equal parts science, public policy and white-collar crime. The controversial tome, reprinted and expanded several times, marked Dr. Epstein as an enemy of industry and swept him to national prominence on radio and television talk shows. He is comfortable dealing with a wide range of questions about cancer, science and politics. "Subversion of the democratic decision making processes -- this is what I am mainly interested in," he says. "It so hap pens that occupational issues are a good cutting edge. I've used cancer in this area as a paragon of failed democratic decision making -- basically, showing how very powerful interests can manipulate and subvert overall democratic decision mak ing. This is the unifying theme of my interests. "I'm just finishing a book which tries to come to grips with the issue of hazardous wastes as an expression of technology run amok -- the failure of social controls to come to grips with technology." Dr. Epstein describes some of his views on cancer, science and politics in this interview; STO t Sa1 i f * f e it f WEST/ WALL 96' wide 1 $529. Co ( `4 Q: There'* a theory that smoking, diet and other aspects of a person's life* style may have a bearing on whether or not they get cancer. Why do yon think there has been such empha* sis placed on this theory? A: The role of lifestyle has been grossly exaggerated as part of an industry strategy to minimize the importance of exposure to occupational and environmental carcinogens. Industry, for many years, has been evolving strate gies to prevent regulations. One is the control of information and another is the denial ofrisk. The third element is: Blame the vic tim, If you get cancer, it's your own fault You drink too much. You smoke too much. The life style theory shifts the burden from industry to the individual Q: Who has been pushing the theory and why have they been pushing it? own fault, this removes from industry the onus to clean up the workshop. It's obvious that it is economic self-interest Then there is in the scientific com munity a group which does not necessarily have any economic investment but they have an intellectual investment to the theory -- people in the last 10, 20, 30 years who should have known better but somehow got boxed in to the exclusivity of this theory and ignored the whole importance of occupation al factors, and they are caught with their pants down. Q: What about cigaret smo king? A* There is a group of scientists who rightfully believe that tobacco is a very important cause of disease, mortality, mor bidity and lung cancer -- which I couldn't agree with more -- but they've overemphasized and exaggerated the role of tobacco to the extent that they are basi cally excluding other causes. If A: If industry maintains that the worker gets cancer, that it's bis Omtinuad on Newt Pag* 168 Cane r Gwwua/ fnm Preceding Page t*r ' 4 t **. "* co, you have something like 28 retro spective epidemiological studies associ ating cancer and tobacco, but for all intents t:.d purposes none of these inquire iito the roie of occupation. This is an extraordinary omission. Q: What about diet? A: There really isn't any scientific basis for incriminating diet as a major cause ofcancer, Q: The American public is being deluged with daily accounts of cancer being caused by such com mon substances as coffee and saccharin. Does everything cause cancer? A: The number of chemicals that cause cancer are very few and far between. We only have epidemiological data on about 24 or 25 chemicals, the chemical agents and processes that have been shown to induce cancer. The idea that everything causes cancer is very far j from the truth. Cancer, a carcinogenic event, is a rare ana a umqi s pnenomenon. Q: How can you say ; - -^e occurrence when one . it of ..'jur Americans will get cancer? A; That's not what I said. The number of chemicals that induce cancer are very rare. That doesn't mean to say cancer is rare. The ability of chemicals to in duce cancer is very, very exceptional. That's an enormous difference. Q: What then, in your view, causes I cancer? A: I don't think there is any question that : exposure to chemical carcinogens in the environment is the cause of the over whelming majority of human cancers. Less than 500 chemicals, in total, have been shown to induce cancer in animal* 1 in testa of hundreds of thousands of chemicals. > Q: Is there a safe limit that can be established for human exposure to a car cinogen? A: No, that's completely nousensical. We just don't have any safe limits for chemical carcinogens. Figures of parts per million or parts per billion are very mis leading. They give the impression these are small amounts. They are not They are enormous amounts. There are a wide range of carcinogens that have been shown to be active at the lowest levels tested, and these levels go down to parts per billion and parts per trillion. Q: For 20 years scientists have tried to show that can cers are caused by viruses. With few exceptions that theory has proven false. Why? A: While it was dear by 1974 that this line of research was poorly profitable, the power of an en trenched establishment -- both in the National Cancer Institute and eisewhen. -- --, basically defy attempts . ifi funding from one area - o relevant areas of(c..t ,, 'i I <fc What about Inter___ so-called "miracle cancer drug"? j A: Interferon is one of the dassic boondoggles. The American Can cer Society has spent millions on the basis of very unsubstantial evidence. After spending $16 million in research, there is a realization that Interferon is not the miracle drug -- it isn't going to make a substantial difference in curing human cancers. In fact most cancers prove resistant to it after a short period of time. Interferon is-programed to be a valuable and useful product from the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, but for the cancer patient its signifi cance is marginal. 11 A.M. TO 6 P.M. I iere's an IMF furniture or ny - the lime to rice* you'll fl -iiora ii in t Al our buyer* been *low me . . not percer HOPING may For openers.i rocker? Sheer si the store, ought to ul only SI39 . other chair* . SOFA A CHA the nimbere I cal It ugly AND ON THE we d like to reason or an mere's a brig ... It's com pretty nice k yourself a hs made to sett BEDROOM Sll plana . . . m please, pleast we have odtfc They've been in sets ... v UNrTS. It you sell them tor: you can't see as $39 and up It your sota i and SAVE S2i S670 will be our Dining Ri them up tor I Suite tor just spring is 25% ROOM suites whole set or from continue them out it I d We hope by i COST--when t on by and LOt A FACT--YOU i As another ex retails for $5 collection of ( savings tor yo NOT LIMITED tagged a lower iic r Cmonimdirom Pircvdin* Pig* Q: You seem upset with the wsy Americans handle the cancer situation. Why don't y u return to England? A: I didn't say I was upset I'm politically pragmatic. In America at least you have an open system. I've just com pleted a British edition of my book, in which Pve pulled out ail the American stuff on regulation and legislation and added about 200 pages on the British political scene. From the point of view of policy and decision making, it is vastly inferior to the American scene. Q: Can you give a few examples? A: They have a very strict libel law in England. You couldn't function as you do as reporter. You'd be in jaiL They have an official secrets act that coven such thing* as the amount of chemicals discharged by industry in the local waterway. Bureaucrats cant be called into account before a congressional committee. A* One, a straight presentation of the facts. Another is the facts. And a third is investiga,w the facta. These are all different ro-'et. ' which different newspapers perform with different degrees of ck'\ J expertise. In ay p3. solid , \ the last 20 years. I've found the news papers in this country have been re sponsible for more important advances in public health than the overwhelming majority of the scientific community put together. In no way am 1 arguing against scientific research. I'm saying we have so much information that is not being used appropriately that the key issue is implementation ofinforma tion as opposed to the need for more scientific research. Q: That view is not going to make you popular among your peers. A- Popularity was never one of my objec tives. ' Q: How about their respect? Q: What effect will the Reagan administration have on cancer research?. A' In general I think I have the respect of the scientific communuty. In the 1960s I was respected scientifically, but peo ple were made uncomfortable by my Ai I think as far as the National Cancer Institute is concerned, there will prob ably not be any major cutbacks. But 1 think the effects, in spite of that, are going to be quite devastating -- partic public policy. Now,, IS years later, I have a lot of allies in the field ofpublic policy. It's difficult to be too critical of me scientifically. It's a little difficult to write me off. ularly in relation to occupational can Q: How do yon answer erities who cer and disease in general The Reagan administration, without any question, , is going to impose so-called strict cost- say you are just a megalomaniac who likes,to be in the press, who likes to be on TV. who enjoys benefit analysis before any regulations for occupational exposures. being on the talk shows, who's selling a book? * ' Q: What's wrong with cost-benefit analysis? A That isn't a very serious question, be cause essentially what I am saying now A: It is very misleading. It emphasises the immediate cost of compliance and uses data from industry; in many cases these data are grossly exaggerated, while employes are overlooked. It bal ances these against the so-called benefits. The benefits of regulation, unlike the costs, are delayed 10. 20 or is what I was saying in 1965, when I was selling nothing. The reason I wrote the book was to limit the demands on my time. I could have spent the rest of my life wandering around as an itiner ant spokesman for the public interest community and for scientists who be lieve in the prevention ofdisease. O 30years from now. It's very difficult to get an estimate of the number of lives that will be saved 20 years from now. The whole cost-benefit analysis has evolved as the modem strategy of industry to block regulation. I think we are going to see a massive dismantling of the whole occupational regulation apparatus. Q: Many professionals criticize newspapers for printing articles about unexplained clusters of cancer incidence. They say news papers shouldn't pretend to be scientists. What role should newspapers play? I