Breast Cancer and the Environment-A Preventable Link
Beri Halperin
In recent years nearly as many women die annually from breast cancer as there were American lives lost in all of the Vietnam War. Cancer is the leading cause of death among women ages 35-54 one third of which is attributed to breast cancer. Each year 182,000 American women are diagnosed with breast cancer 46,000 of which loss their lives to it. This staggering figure continues to rise as it is estimated that one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. Why then has breast cancer just recently gained attention as an epidemic which must be addressed? Moreover, why are we only focusing our attention on pricey cures while failing to see that most cancer is environmentally related and therefore preventable? There exist three lines of reasoning which link breast cancer with the environment. There currently exists three hard core arguments that link breast cancer directly to the environment. First, the incidence of breast cancer between communities within the United States vary by a factor of seven. Second, The risk for breast cancer among populations that have migrated becomes that of their new residence within a generation (this is particularly evident in Japanese women who have emigrated to the United States). Finally, the incidence of breast cancer in the United States ballooned from 1/20 in 1940 to 1/8 in the 1990s.
What major studies have been done that provide evidence that breast cancer is linked to the environment ?
The link between breast cancer and the environment is not a recent revelation. In fact, over thirty years ago it was shown that organochorines, a family of compounds including pesticide DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), could induce mammary tumors in lab animals. Little was done to follow up on what should seemingly be a substantial enough correlation which would affect the health of half the population. Two decades ago researchers discovered that human breast tumors contain higher levels of organochlorines than surrounding, healthy breast tissue. Again there were no follow up studies done. It wasn't until 1992, after a study conducted by Frank Falck,M.D.,Ph.D., then assistant clinical professor in the department of surgery at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, that breast cancer became worthy of attention, funding, and research. Dr. Falck's examined samples from forty biopsies of suspicious breast lumps. Those which were cancerous showed significantly higher levels of PCBs, DDT, and DDE (a breakdown of DDT).(It is interesting to note that Dr. Flack was a cancer research outsider in that he was not funded by the National Cancer Institute or American Cancer Society).
Two other studies addressing the link between breast cancer and the environment are worthy of mention. In 1985 Mary Wolf, Ph.D. (who also co-authored Falck's study) analyzed blood specimens from over 14,000 women. The blood specimens from those with cancer showed higher levels of DDE. Furthermore, those women with higher DDE contamination had four times the risk of breast cancer. (Notice how Wolff's study was significantly larger and took into account the other accepted risks for breast cancer than Flack's- However it was Falck's study which earned attention) In 1990 another study was done, this time outside the US Elihu Richter and Jerry Westin of the Hebrew University Hadassah School of Medicine found Israel to be one out of twenty eight countries surveyed which had a drop in breast cancer mortality rate between 1976-1986. Where an expected rise would have been concurrent with the trend in other industrialized countries, there was an actual 8% drop. Richter and Westin attributed the drop to the 1978 ban on three carcinogenic pesticides (benzene hexachloride, lindane, and DDT) that heavily contaminated milk products.
What are Organochlorines and how do they work?
Organochlorines are organic compounds containing chlorine bonded to carbon. They are products and byproducts of the chemical industry. Their largest use is in the manufacture of plastics. They are also used in bleaches, disaffection, dry cleaning, fire prevention, refrigeration, and pesticides. There are three main ways which organochlorines contribute to breast cancer risk. First, some directly mutate genetic material. Second, some enhance the carcinogenicity of other chemical. Finally, some mimic or disrupt natural hormones, in particular estrogen. This last line of evidence is perhaps most interesting in that organochlorines such as DDY, DDE, and PCBs are xenoestrogens which can bind to the body's estrogen receptors. Evidence for this last argument as to how organochlorines work is found in the notable environmentalcontamination of breast milk. The xenoestrogenic organochlorines are fat soluble substances poorly metabolized by the body which additionally have a long half-life in the tissue. The breast, being composed of primarily fatty tissue as well as laden with estrogen receptors, is therefore a prime location for these chemicals to build up. As if it isn't bad enough to have these contaminants in one's system, they can additionally interactwith each other, creating additive toxic effects and incidental contaminants such as dibenzofurans and dioxins.
What is being done and what should we be doing?
The mere fact this past decade the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences received the smallest budget increase of all the National Institutes alreadysends up a red flag. It is abhorable that a mere 17% of the National Cancer Institutes money goes to prevention. This only ramifies the fact that in our society high cost cures are more profitable than preventing the disease from even taking hold. It also exemplifies the tight hold industry has over where and how research money is abdicated. For example, Zeneca, the manufacturers of Tamoxifen (a drug that acts as an anti estrogen and is often given to healthy women to prevent cancer) profits greatly from cancer as it produces carcinogenic organochlorine chemicals in the production of drugs they create which are supposed to cure cancer! This is one example of how industry adds fuel to the cycle of giving more drugs to counteract the effect of previous exposures to harmful drugs and chemicals. Getting to the root of breast cancer is not merely a medical predicament. Breast cancer prevention is laden in political and economic issues. It is not coincidental that our country focuses on lucrative cancer cures as opposed to examining ways to prevent breast cancer through monitoring exposure to organochllorines. Where cures equal large profits for drug companies, prevention equals highly regulated and possible reorganization of industry. If we value the lives of our mothers, daughters, sisters, and friends, at a rate of one in eight women being diagnosed with breast cancer, there is no question that women's health should take precedence over industries' interests.
Sources:
Links:
Organizations to contact: