Cancer panel: 'Grievous harm' posed by unchecked chemicals in U.S.

[Guest guest]

Why is okay to believe that the environment can cause cancer, but not

neurological harm??

Cancer panel: 'Grievous harm' posed by unchecked chemicals in U.S.

By Lyndsey Layton

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, May 6, 2010; 1:46 PM

An expert panel that advises the president on cancer said Thursday that

Americans are facing " grievous harm " from chemicals in the air, food and water

that have largely gone unregulated and ignored.

The President's Cancer Panel called for a new national strategy that focuses on

such threats in the environment and workplace. It called those dangers

" underestimated. "

" With the growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer,

the public is becoming increasingly aware of the unacceptable burden of cancer

resulting from environmental and occupational exposures that could have been

prevented through appropriate national action, " the panel wrote in a report

released Thursday.

Currently, federal chemical laws are weak, funding is inadequate and regulatory

responsibilities are spilt among too many agencies, the panel found.

Children are particularly vulnerable because of their smaller bodies and fast

physical development, the panel found. The report noted rising rates of cancer

in children, and it referred to recent studies that have found industrial

chemicals in umbilical-cord blood, which supplies nutrients to developing

fetuses. " To a disturbing extent, babies are born 'pre-polluted,' " the panel

wrote.

Health officials lack critical knowledge about the health impact of chemicals on

fetuses and children, the report said.

In addition, the government's standards for safe chemical exposure in the

workplace are outdated, it said.

In 2009, about 1.5 million American men, women and children had cancer

diagnosed, and 562,000 people died from the disease.

The panel found that the country needs to overhaul existing chemical laws, a

conclusion that has been supported by public health groups, environmental

advocates, the chemical industry and the Obama administration.

The current system places the burden on the government to prove beyond a doubt

that a chemical is unsafe before it can removed from the market. The standards

are so high, the government has been unable to ban chemicals such as asbestos, a

widely recognized carcinogen that is prohibited in dozens of countries.

About 80,000 chemicals are in commercial use in the United States, but federal

regulators have assessed only about 200 for safety.

A bill filed last month by Sen. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) , the Safe Chemicals

Act of 2010, would shift the burden to manufacturers to prove the safety of new

chemicals before they can be used. It would also require companies to give

federal regulators safety data for chemicals already on the market. The cancer

panel called that bill a good starting point.

Still, the panel said, when the government evaluates the safety of a chemical,

it needs to look beyond individual chemicals to consider the cumulative effect

on humans from exposure to multiple chemicals, and it must consider how small

amounts of a chemical can cause subtle changes in the human body that can result

in cancer years later.