Document mmjoqg9zKxeQDyaX385kNbZO0

.4 # V (Limited by Guarantee) 68 GLOUCESTER PLACE, LONDON WiH 3HL MEMORANDUM TO: All Member Associations . Members of Executive Committee FROM: Sir Neville Stack RECEIVED APR fc 6 1979 UCC-CALIDRIA NIAGARA FALL". N. T. AIA/20/1 /10/HAS 11 April 1979 ESTIMATES OF THE FRACTION OF CANCER IN THE UNITED STATES RELATED TO OCCUPATIONAL FACTORS (THE "ESTIMATES" PAPER) ___________ ' (The following deliberately over-simplified comments on the above paper are provided as background material for laymen) PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT UC-1569 A ; 805 J The quality of scientific publications often used as a basis for regulatory action by the United States Departments of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), and of Labor, had been sternly criticised by a vide range of academics and others well before the publication of the HEW paper "Estimates of the Fraction of Cancer in United States Related to Occupational Factors", often referred to more briefly as the Estimates Paper. The Estimates Paper has received much detailed criticism, not only from spokesmen for the various industries alluded to in that paper but also from academia, the scientific press and even from other US Government agencies. The Estimates Paper has been criticised on many grounds but the three most fundamental are:- Using misleadingly high estimates of the number of people in a work force exposed to different occupational carcinogens. Using further misleadingly high estimates when predicting the number of this exposed workforce which will develop cancer from their exposures. Frequently assuming that all those who are in any way exposed to potential carcinogens are exposed to equally heavy concentrations; this ignores the fact that most published studies are based upon the experience, of those most heavily exposed. Critics have further observed that, were the predictions of the Estimates Paper sound, the "epidemic" of occupationally related cancer in th< -United States expected by the authors of that document would already be occurring - and it is clear, on the basis of data published by the US National Cancer Institute, that it is not. The authors of the Estimates Paper have asserted that they believe its reasoning to be sound and its conclusions justified but have not, so far, replied to their critics with any rigor or precision. The authors of the Estimates Paper note that asbestos is a "well-studied example" of an occupational carcinogen and,*in developing their predictions, devote much attention to the asbestos exposed workforces of the World War II era. tabbies' All Member Associations Member of Executive Committee -2 AIA/20/1/10/HAS 11 April 1979 The Paper, and the furore it has engendered, are of concern to AIA. The AIA does not wish to enter the dispute, already involving so many authorities from so many different sources, but is resolutely of the view that it would be most improper for the Paper to influence Government policy, in the US or elsewhere, until it can be subjected to adequate peer review. Sir Neville Stack cc Chairman, Medical Advisory^ Panel Dr. H.C. Lewinsohn Dr. P. Kotin 4 *80 A : 8 0 S 1 Jtyyzu- ^ \njds2tv-cl^ pUSid&L&Vfy. cuJm*Zm- Jrri' <fyoc*Ld*L CS?tfc*-L - ^U&- ^yuzeU <zJstHc s>t ^2^u^U. l^OPf.-) ^ Jt^ ^jy 44*4-; rfzM&Mt. -cca. J^y'ttti/^, eula-a vfyte, fHt<L^y 'ca- - iOe, **. *Mc sUdU^dil J&rz*-ou-C*ta idem. *V-L C&vt~- Mbn&ru, W 7 / $tv- bn-oiiy c/ Lcr^cJ i cd n^y^X U/li {]. (/* w^ '< fi b ,-,p/ L < ; 4 ?. h; /t 6' M t ^ ^ <^e \u^ -n'" "f- i.\UJP A ; 8032 RECEIVED APR 1 61979 UCC-CAUDRIA NIAGARA FALX*. H.X, jnr.z.q- SAFETY & HEALTH Doctors say cancer is a bum rap for industry Specialists say the federal focus should be on smoking and alcohol--not pollutants In the federal government's war on cancer, industry has been identified as the major enemy. Over the past several years, laws and regulations have ordered companies to reduce the amounts of suspected cancer-causing substances that they discharge into the air, water, and workplace. But many physicians and health professionals are becoming con cerned that these government programs, while well-intentioned, are misdirected and will fail to achieve any appreciable reduction in cancer deaths. "The country cannot Afford to spend vast amounts of money to chase the wrong culprit in cancer incidence," says Dr. Harry B. Demopoulos, a pathologist with the New York University School of Medicine. Instead, Demopoulos and oth er health officials believe that more attention should be focused on the personal habits of individuals, because, they say, .there is medical evidence that certain practices can contribute signifi cantly to the cancer death rate. Such habits include smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and poor nutrition. Consumer responsibility. Because of the economics involved, the issue of assess ing what is to blame for cancer is contro versial, and the philosophy espoused by these medical people has heated up the debate. If heavy industries such as steel and chemicals are made to bear the burden of cancer prevention, it means that they must continue to install expen sive equipment to control the emissions of suspected carcinogens and other air pollutants. If the finger is pointed at cigarettes, liquor, or foods high in fat, the manufacturers of those products will undoubtedly lose sales. More important, this new philosophy is causing a stir because it leaves the greatest responsibility for preventing cancer with the consumer. "It's easier for the public to blame smokestacks rather than themselves as the causes of cancer," says Demopoulos. Indeed, health officials who have blamed person al habits have been severely criticized by the press, government officials, and other members of the health profession. In an extreme case. New Jersey State Senator John M. Skevin asked the state's attorney general to investigate Elizabeth M. Whelan, a research asso ciate from the Harvard School of Public 130 J BUSINESS WEEK: March 19. 1979 Health, who founded the American Council on Science & Health. Whelan's group has argued that there is little to connect so-called cancer dus ters in New Jersey with industrial pollu tion. But Skevin has charged that the group is an industry "conspiracy" set up to blame all cancer on cigarettes, alco hol, and lack of exercise. Another of tist with the Environmental Defense Fund. Dr. Anthony Robbins, director of the National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health, cautions: "We have to be careful that we are not implying to workers that all other hazards will go away if smoking is stopped." But doctors are concerned that insuffi cient epidemiological data are increas- , ingly being used to justify costly t government rules. During a re cent cancer symposium in New York attended by more than 200 health professionals. Dr. Merrill Eisenbud, professor of environ mental medicine at NYU's School of Medicine, criticized the Envi ronmental Protection Agency's costly requirement that cities install activated carbon to filter out trihalomethanes, suspected carcinogens, in drinking-water supplies. Trihalomethanes, he says, have been present in drink ing water since the latter part of the 19th century, when chlorina tion began. Questioning Cslilano. Under heavy attack by these health specialists is a statement made by Health, Education & Welfare Secretary Joseph A. Califano Jr. attributing at least 20% of all cancer to occupational causes. Demopoulos believes that closer to 5% of all cancer is caused by workplace conditions. The "real culprit" is cigarettes, he says, Researcher Whelan: Under attack (or debunking which may account for as much the notion that there is a cancer epidemic. as 27% of cancer deaths each year. According to the NYU path Whelan's statements--that National ologist, National Cancer Institute data Cancer Institute data do not back up the show that excessive alcohol consumption common notion that there is a cancer may be responsible for an additional epidemic--also was greeted with hostili 10% of all cancer deaths, while poor ty and led to allegations in the press that nutritional habits may account for as she had accepted money from a founda much as 40% of total cancer deaths. tion linked with industry. Actually, Predictably, the heavy industries have Whelan says, she has meticulously been encouraged by these recent state avoided accepting funds from industry ments. And William J. McCarville, di but did take a grant of $100,000 from the rector of environmental affairs at Mon Sarah Scaife Foundation in Pittsburgh, santo Co., says that such new views may which owns considerable stock in Gulf have an impact on the enforcement of Oil Corp. "It's a sad situation when you federal laws. stand up and say there is no cancer On the other hand, one of the main epidemic, and you're labeled as an indus targets of this new philosophy, the try spokesman," she says. tobacco industry, discounts these views. But many worry that such views as An official at the Tobacco Institute, an Whelan's understate the adverse impact industry trade group, says that many that industrial activities may have on industries have blamed their own prob public health. "People cannot control lems on tobacco, and he repeats the whether the air is polluted or their tobacco industry's position that research clothes are treated with carcinogens," linking smoking with cancer deaths is says Joseph H. Highland, a staff scien not conclusive. Cs fc-; C05 o SAFETY & HEALT 1