Document gDpq33XqJ2zjj7KJd4VnyVvxa

r The equation is simple, insists toxicologist Samuel Epstein: Chemicals -- more than diet and cigarets -- are killing us By DOUGLAS ILKA SUJT Writer 7 ITH his thinning hair, gold-rim- -*. t~ Wmed fliUes 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 Newf tuff wriur DomgUt Ilka b iW author oi am a wart-' aerie* at article* then* ike to ponder questions os his favorite sub ject The answers come with meticulous precision in a British accent muted from link brtwen worklag eoeditioea aat the iaciteaee ata**ear aaaoag worker* ye r consultation with American re- Dr. Samuel S. Epstein sc s, labor leaders and political acti..^j. times, marked Dr. Epstein as an enemy of Contrary to what some recent studies industry and swept him to national seem to Indicate, cancer, be insists, is not prominence on radio and television talk caused by nearly everything around us. shows. He is comfortable dealing with a Instead, he says, it is caused by a relative wide range of questions about cancer, ly small number of chemical contami science and politics. nants occurring at certain Industrial sites "Subversion of the democratic decision- or distributed throughout the environ making processes -- this is what I am ment by such processes as industrial mainly interested in,** he says. "It so hap pollution. pens that occupational issues are a good Dr. Epstein is an internationally recog- cutting edge. I've used cancer in this area nixed expert on toxicology and chemical paragon of failed democratic decision carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). He making -- basically, showing how very ' has served since 1975 as professor of occu powerful interests can manipulate and pational and environmental medicine at subvert overall democratic decision mak the School of Public Health, University of ing. This is the unifying theme of my Illinois at-the Medical Center, Chicago. Interests. He holds multiple medical degrees from I'm just finishing a book which tries to the University of London and has had 250 come to grips with the issue of hazardous scientific papers published. wastes as an expression of technology run His The Politics of Cancer was a 1977 amok -- the failure of social controls to Sierra Club book selection which com come to grips with technology." bined equal parts science, public policy Dr. Epstein describes some of his views and white-collar crime. The controversial on cancer, science and politics in tbit tone, reprinted and expanded several interview: W K cn K<r. o o STQ Sa' Q: There's a theory that own fault, this removes from smoking diet and other aspects of a person's life* style mmy have a bearing industry the onus to dean up the workshop It's obvious that it is economic self-interest Then on whether or not they get there is in the scientific com cancer. Why do you think there has been such empha munity a group which does not necessarily have any economic sis placed on this theory? investment, but they have an intellectual investment to the theory -- people in the last 10, A: The role of lifestyle has beta grossly exaggerated as pert of an industry strategy to minimize the importance of exposure to occupational end environmental} carcinogens. Industry, for many years, has been evolving strate 20, 30 years who should haveknown 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. gies to prevent regulations. One Q: What about ctgaret smo* " is the control of information and `^'Xking?' '**-* j ' another is the denial ofrisk. The f third element is: Blame the vie- A: There is a group of scientists tim. If you get cancer, it's your ' who rightfully believe that own fault You drink too much. , tobacco is a very important You smoke too much. The life- cause of disease, mortality, mor . style theory shifts the burden from industry to the individual. bidity and lung cancer -- which I couldn "t agree with more -- Q: Who has been pushing the theory and why have they been pushing it? 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 its his Continued oa Nett P*fe 25262002 Cancer Cnnfinuo/from fretWwf /'/ you /ooA at the whole history of tobac co, you have something like 2$ retro spective epidemioJogical studies associ ating cancer and tobacco, but for all intents and purposes pone of these . . inquire into the role 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 riuse of cancer, Q: The American public is being deluged with daily accounts of , cancer being caused by such com* non 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 ; shows to induce cancer. The idea that everything causes cancer is very far from the truth. Cancer, a carcinogenic event, is a rare and jnfaue pbenopenon. Q: How can you 'say it Is a rare . occurrence when one out of four * ' Americans will get cancer? A: That's not what 1 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-l cancer?.. : v-* -r > As I don *t think there is any question that I 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 i been shown to induce cancer in animmh { ; , in tests of hundreds of thousands of ' chemicals. :**'*'*' 7*- ***;/ A. C00292SZ s there a safe limit that an be established for human exposure to a car trenched establishment -- both in the National Cancer Institute and elsewhere -- was such to cinogen? A: No, that's completely nonsensi cal. We just dob't have any'safe basically defy attempts to shift funding from one area to more relevant areas ofresearch. ;. V limits for chemical carcinogens. 7 Q: What about Interferon, the Figures of parts per million or. parts per. billion are yery mis ''' so-called drug"?. "miracle cancer 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. . A: Interferon is one of the classic boondoggles. The American Can cer Society has spent millions on the basis of very unsubstantial evidence, /ifter spending $16 million in research, there is a realization.that Interferon is not the miracle drug -- it isn *t going Q: For 20 years scientists have tried to show that cancers are caused by viruses. With few exceptions that theory has proven false. Why? 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 A: While it was clear by 1974 that pharmaceutical industry, but for this line of research was poorly the cancer patient its aignifi- profitable, the power of an en . cance it marginal * Ken's an IMF furniture or rre is the time X6 prices you'd fi --from 11 to f AM our buyers been slow me . . notpercer HOPING that J <. For openers, rocker? Shea In the store, '.ought to seB 4 . only SI99 . . 1 other chain < . *. SOFA 4 CKA the lumbers.. I cafl M ugly1 AMO ON THE we'd like to reason or an , there's a brig ... M's coin pretty nice k yourself a ha jl- - made to sell BEDROOM SU ;A. pUns . . . ra 'b. please, please w have odd: i/'J' .. . They've been ....:. in sets . . . v UNITS, t! you * sell them lor i , you can't see , as $39 and up . . '> J_ -' U'-V r.V'i. c. w-;.. <'. <wZy*`- . 4 > 1*C - I ..>**,? It your sofa i and SAVE S2'. $670 will be our Dining Ri them up for i Suite for just spring is 25% ROOM suites whole set or. from continue * them out if 1 d ' We hope by < COST---when t on by and 10< A FACT--YOU i As another ex retails for $5 collection of ( >- - savings for yo- 's:.: >' NOT LIMITED lagged at low# - VS- V '?,'A , (\ r>'.v.V< ' - ,' .' 'M' r >' ' fA '..i.- * ?*'. ,t r*- fi-TL.T .-V;-`7% LIVONIA < Ope ?0 Cancer As One, a straight presentation of the r^. You seem upset with the way . \ facts. Another is interpretation of the ' ssertcans handle the cancer .tuation. Why don't you return to facts. And a third is investigation of ' the facts. These are all different roles, " JELagland?- . ` which different newspapers perform ' X.1 / didn *f say / w&j upset, I'm politically pragmatic, lo America at least you - have an open system, I've just com- with different degrees of skill and I expertise. In my personal experience in the last 20 years. I've found the newspapers in this country have been re-.f pieted a British edition of my book, i****&"sponsible for more important advances * which I've pulled out all the American in pub...li.c....h..e...r.i.t.h....th. an the overw.he.lm.ing . stuff on regulation and legislation and majority of the scientific community added about 200 pages on the British put together. In no way am I arguing political scene. From the point of view against scientific research. Tm saying of policy and decision making, it is we have so nuch information that is vastly inferior to the American scene. not being used appropriately that the key issue is implementation ofinforma Q: Can you give a few examples? tion as opposed to the need for more , A: They have a very strict libel law in scientific research. ; -v-x: England. You couldn't /unction as you/, q. j'hat view is not going to make do as reporter. You*d be in jail Tbey*fc, you popular among your peers* have an official secrets act that covers such 1 h fn^< aj the amount ofchemicals A: Popularity was never one of my objec discharged by industry to the local tives. v waterway. Bureaucrats can't be called into account before a congressional Q: Eow about their respect? committee. Ai In general I think I have the respect of Q: What effect will the Reagan administration have on cancer, research?. \ the scientific communuty. In the 1960s 'I was respected scientifically, but peo- 'pie were made uncomfortable by my .A-1 think as fm ms the Nmtiotul OmcJW iuWc VT? abtly no*t bre any m_ajo*r cuVtb. ac*Vkx Bu,t11i " think the effects, in spite of that, are going to be quite devastating -- partic p*mZoeMlicsyc.ieInttsifidcaiflfliyc.uIultt>'st-oa. blviet*tt*loei.oAdci:frrfriit,ci~cu,aultl o^tof *write me off. . ularly in relation to occupational cancar and disease In general. The Reagan administration, without any question, is going to impose so-calied strict costbenefit analysis before any regulations for occupational exposures. Q: How do yoo answer crities who ,' say you are just a megalomaniac ' who likes-to be In the press, who likes to be on TV, who enjoys being on the talk shows, who's selling a book? *>: Whatfs wrong analysis?. with cost-benefit' A: That isn't a very serious question, be-: cause essentially what lam saying now A: It is very misleading. It emphasizes 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, art 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 ttiner-. ant spokesman for the public interest community and for scientists who be lieve fa the prevention ofdisease. C3 00years from now. It's very difficult to ( . get an estimate of the number of lives that will be saved 20 years from new.] The whole cost-beneiit analysis has. ' evolved as the modern strategy of industry to block regulation. I think we. are going to see a massive dismantling of,the whole occupational regulation, apparatus. I i 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? >