After the lecture - Losing the War Against Cancer!
Dr. Epstein answers questions:
Qu: National Women's Hospital sprayed for cockroaches. They sprayed with Ficam, a carbamate. Three weeks ago, it's been a regular process. You would think this is of concern for these babies and mothers?
E: Well, carbamates, I take it this is a maternity hospital, well this is an excellent way to ensure learning defects in children and of course this will provide a great source of employment for paediatricians and child psychologists and speaking very seriously I think this is totally outrageous and I would suggest that strong action be taken. There are data on long-term neurobehavioural effects of carbamates and in general I would recommend that people are not to go to hospital especially if they're sick, if there are alternatives.
(A comment from a Cancer Society representative on the role of smoking in cancer)
E: I'm delighted by your comments but let's clear up some
misunderstanding. The emphasis of the cancer societies in the US, GB and this country is
exclusively on a person's life style and you are proving exactly what I stated. The
emphasis is on tobacco in this country and melanoma, these are all expressions of
lifestyle which reflect individual choices on the one hand, with the exception of course
that once an adolescent is attracted to smoke there's no individual choice there because
he/she becomes addicted to it. So I'm entirely in agreement that lifestyle factors are
important, and in all my writings I have stressed the importance of avoidance of say
tobacco. Tobacco is a very important cause of death disease and disability and I'm
surprised I haven't made myself clear on all of this.
My point is that there has been a
total neglect by the cancer societies internationally of avoidable exposures to industrial
carcinogens in the air, food, water and the workplace. It's not tobacco versus industrial
carcinogens. We recognise fully, in fact my early writings in the 1960's state the fact
explicitly and I say the same as I've said for the last 30 years: Tobacco is a major cause
of death, disease and disability. I repeat again that the cancer societies have in no way
turned their attention to a wide range of avoidable exposures of the public to carcinogens
in air, food, water and the workplace.
If you look at the annual facts and figures of the
American Cancer Society you see a section on childhood cancer. No reference whatsoever to
some 40 international studies clearly associating childhood cancers to preventable
exposures to carcinogens. No mention whatsoever in the literature of the American Cancer
Society or of this country or elsewhere of carcinogenic contaminants in diet. No reference
to pesticides. Simply because you've taken action on tobacco which represents the major
contribution of cancer societies in the past, to cancer prevention and in this country to
melanoma.
To say we're not going to in any way entangle ourselves with more complex
factors which impinge or impact on industry interests which can challenge the status quo,
no attempt to tell the public what carcinogens they're exposed to in the air, the food,
the water or the workplace. This is what I'm getting at. I take no exception whatsoever,
in fact I fully endorse concern on lifestyle so I'm delighted by your expression of
support in principle, but I want to see this translated into action. Let us hope that we
can see from your Movement strong statements of support of the public's Right-to-know to
what carcinogens they're exposed in the food, the water, the air and the workplace. Let us
hope to see this particular information coming from your particular division of the cancer
society, statements which urge the government to phase out use of carcinogenic pesticides,
etc etc.
Once we see this the unfortunate rift which has developed between cancer
societies nationally and internationally and the environmentalists and independent
scientists such as myself will be healed. Let me assure you that for the last 25 years, I
and other colleagues have been attempting to inform the American Society from within. With
no success. In fact I could give you a list as long as both your arms of when the American
Cancer Society has refused to endorse legislation designed to phase out toxic and
carcinogen chemicals. They refused to back the Dellaney Amendment, they refused to back
Toxic Air Substances, the air pollution Acts.
I could go on and on and on , there is
without any question at all, an unwillingness or refusal of Cancer Societies, nationally
and internationally, to support actions taken to phase out the use of a wide range of
carcinogens use in our environment and unknowing exposures of the public. Let us hope from
your statements this evening, and I was impressed by the sincerity of your presentation
that you will join with us and share with us and educate yourself on the information which
is freely available, and work together. And then I would hope that on my future visits to
New Zealand I would be able to spend more time on the beach.
Qu: Information comes from of course, not just one source,.... In February we had an international conference which included 2 papers on environmental mutagens and carcinogens in which people from quite a few continents which included not South America but Japan, China, Jamaica, Europe and Africa and Australia too. We numbered over 100 or so of scientist, some of them of course were not particularly specialists but many were. None of them raised any of these issues as important contributors to cancer in terms of pesticide contaminants contributing to cancer levels we are having in this country and other parts of the world. Are you the only one against all of these? Are you indeed against it, is there in fact a conspiracy, or are you the only one in step?
E: Let me respond. First of all, the positions that I take it you've expressed are a reflection among other things of a press conference in Washington DC on February 4th, 1992 where I presented a statement on behalf of the leading Public Health experts in the US, past presidents of the American Public Health Association, the top experts in environmental carcinogenesis, epidemiology statistics, past directors of Federal agencies such as the National Health Sciences, National Institute of the Environmental Health Sciences, the occupational sect in Health Administration of the Carter administration. People with unparalleled track records. And the views which I've just expressed on the needs to reduce the exposures to carcinogens in the air, food, water and the workplace were reflected unanimously by these physicians. That's No.1.
In the overwhelming majority the scientists working on cancer research currently receive their grants in the United States from the American Cancer Society and from the National Cancer Institute. These people are also people who are invited as delegates to such conventions and therefore to suggest that a scientist working for the American Cancer Society whose policy has been systematically to ignore such concerns, or scientists working under contract from a grant from the National Cancer Institute who are invited to these meetings, would take positions which would jeopardise his contract is to say the least unreasonable, Sir.
Therefore one of the elements in this very complex picture is to
recognise constraints and conflicts of interest which I've touched on this evening. I
could for instance explain to you... Let me give one example. Sloane Academy Memorial
Cancer Centre is perhaps the prototype national cancer centre in the world, the largest
most powerful in its political influence, in its scientific work, and its prestige.
There's been virtually no effort by any of the Sloane Academy scientists or research
workers in areas of cancer prevention that we've been talking about. Further more if you
examine the power structure of the Sloane Academy in some detail, and you'll find it
documented in my paper, the International Journal of Health Services, you'll find
remarkable evidence of conflicts in the Board of Overseers, strong interlocking
directorships to the cancer drug industries, strong interlocking relationships with the
petrochemical banking and investing industry. I could go on and on. But the point you made
is an important one. How are we, namely the public to be able to distinguish the dissident
voices that we hear.
One expert tells us this, yet the majority of the other expert tells us that. And this is a difficult decision. All I can say is you have to examine the nature of the complex factors operating in the circumstances. You have to realise that the overwhelming majority of scientists were funded by the particular organisations, they will not talk in a negative way about these organisations.
Another example:
One of the issues I've been involved in the last few years is the issue of bovine growth hormone, which is a bio-synthetic hormone produced to increase milk yield in cattle. Research has been going on in the EPA into bovine growth hormone since the late 50's, early 1960's. Some 22 dairy science departments in universities all over America have been working on Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH). They have all come up with a clean bill-of-health stating clearly and unequivocally that there are no problems involved in this. However, all these scientists and departments have received contracts, or are under contract to the five or six major pharmaceutical and agrochemical industries that are paying for their work.
So, when you examine their publications they say clearly and unequivocally there's not the slightest scrap of evidence of any adverse effect. When you look at their raw data you find an entirely different story. In fact, one of the most interesting elements of what has happened, in Nov 1989 I had already responded to proposals by the FDA to authorise the use of BGH I developed independent sources of information which showed cattle receiving doses of BGH were under great stress and were being treated with high levels of antibiotics. These antibiotics may be carcinogenic and spill over into milk, and a great deal of BGH will spill over into milk, and infants will drink this. And in November 89 a great big box of documents arrived at my office. From an unknown source. These were confidential internal files from Monsanto which clearly showed the following: Contrary to their statements, and contrary to the statements of academic scientists who worked for them the overwhelming majority of the animals were sick.
There was a high incidence of reproductive failure, most of the cattle were treated with antibiotics which spilled over into the milk etc etc, but on the basis of this I submitted, I passed over these documents to Congress. Here you are with about 60 different scientists, prominent names in agricultural veterinary science, none of them incidentally had qualifications in Public Health, unequivocally assuring the public that there were no problems at all. Then these data from Monsanto appear which when looked at from the point of view of independent auditors, by government auditors, by Congressional examiners clearly showed that Monsanto had deliberately mislead the public on a wide range of issues. And Congressman Conyers in his letter said that clearly Monsanto has conspired to suppress critical information on adverse veterinary health effects. This is one element in a very complex story.
But I agree with you Sir that the situation is difficult. It's difficult to distinguish between truth and reality in these instances also to distinguish between those who have hidden agendas, scientists that come to you who hidden agendas, but I believe that the international literature is so very clear-cut. You have a volume for instance of the New York Academy of Science on experts who have worked in fields of statistics of epidemiology and carcinogenicity. All of whom have recently completed a consensus monograph on cancer mortality rates in industrialised countries. And they say clearly that cancer mortality rates in industrialised countries are escalating to epidemic proportions, tobacco cannot account for these, ???? very highly authoritative monograph evidence of pesticide, evidence of ??? .
The evidence which has developed over the last 2-3 decades of carcinogenic effects of a wide range of carcinogens in the workplace, the air, the food and the water is very persuasive, and it's very unfortunate indeed that mindsets of ignorance in the cancer establishment have proven to be a very significant disgrace.
Prof Epstein then asked questions, predominantly by John Gaister of the New Zealand Cancer Society.