Pesticide use is rampant in schools in Iowa, Indiana, and Illinois. Pesticides that are known to be carcinogenic (and neurotoxic) are applied in schools when children are present or just
before they arrive or depart. This is just one example of why members of Iowa Breast Cancer
Edu-Action support the use of the precautionary principle.
According to the National Cancer Institute, 10,400 children were newly diagnosed with
cancer in 2007.
The incidence rates of some cancers are continuing to rise, many of which are endocrine-
mediated cancers. In 2005 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that
Indiana had the ninth highest death rate from cancer in the country and was also fifteenth in production of agricultural chemicals; the link between the two seems to be obvious. Enough
is known to shift to a precautionary approach to prevention in the U.S. Precaution calls for
green chemistry and educating chemists in toxicology so they know the health implications of
the chemicals they are creating. The goal should be to create chemicals, pesticides, plastics, etc., that are safe and sustainable, but until that is achieved, the emphasis needs to shift to prevention.
The system of using risk assessment to set an acceptable level of exposure is fundamentally flawed; methods need to be developed to enact the precautionary approach and shift the
burden of proof. An example is the definition of pesticide spray drift, which is defined [by the EPA] as occurring at the time of application or soon thereafter and generally does not include movement to off-target sites. However, pesticides can move after the time of application (i.e., by erosion, volatility, windblown soil particles); a person exposed to that kind of drift has no legal recourse.
It is not right that U.S. citizens are involuntarily exposed to hazardous substances and unable to make informed decisions regarding their health. It is also difficult for cancer patients and survivors to find available resources for scientific information.
Chemical policy in Europe is shifting the burden of proof onto corporations to prove that their products are safe, and the United States should follow this example.
Educating clinicians is a challenge in America, as they are often unaware of the effects of environmental factors on cancer and other diseases. Toxicology and environmental health
need to be added to the required repertoire of classes taken by clinicians.
The studies presented here, linking atrazine to prostate and breast cancers, have not been replicated. Researchers in multiple states, including Wisconsin and Missouri, have shown that there is no link between atrazine and breast cancer in humans. The National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey will include data this year on the metabolites of atrazine and
will be able to determine the exact percentage of Americans with these metabolites in their
bodies.
When the weight of the evidence suggests harm, it should be enough for action. Proof-based arguments are not followed in medicine and should not be the method used to regulate
chemicals and pesticides.
The Food Quality and Protection Act of 1996 is a protective law, but in terms of enforcement, the tenfold safety factor for children has been largely ignored. In addition to the creation of new regulations, existing laws need to be enforced.
CLOSING REMARKS—DR. LEFFALL
Dr. Leffall thanked the attendees and panelists for making valuable contributions and assured them that the Panel will carefully consider the information collected at the meeting.
Indianapolis, IN
19
October 21, 2008