Link Between Toxic Chemicals and Breast Cancer?

Many chemicals used in food products and personal care or found in our water, air, and soil can be hormone disrupters, bioaccumulative, or carcinogenic. Breast cancer rates are increasing; it is not a stretch of the imagination to connect the widespread use of synthetic chemicals and health or reproductive effects, such as earlier ages of puberty in girls or lower sperm counts in men or increased rates of breast cancer.

From the Women's Health special section of the Toronto Star, Thursday, January 10, 2008, page V and V6, an article about breast cancer and environmental issues, such as toxins in the air or in the workplace:

Breast Cancer Research
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Six years ago, LaRose Lambert was diagnosed with breast cancer. The retired Sarnia nurse successfully dealt with it thanks to a lumpectomy, chemotherapy and radiation, but like many women who get the disease, she remains haunted by a simple question: Why me?

Terrence Belford
Special to the Star

LaRose Lambert says she has a pretty good idea why she contracted breast cancer.

Genetics may have played a role - her mother was diagnosed with the disease at age 70. But Lambert insists the real culprit was likely where she lived and what she did for a living.

"There was a cluster of seven of us out of 20 nurses at Sarnia General Hospital who all developed breast cancer in a short period of time," says Lambert, 65. "That has to tell you something.

"I think the real cause is environmental and workplace exposure to toxins. You may be born with a genetic disposition but the toxins surrounding us trigger the disease."

Lambert is not alone in her theory.

The idea that environmental factors are the most common cancer triggers is gaining widespread acceptance among researchers and the medical community. That acceptance may change the way we live and work.

While there may not be definitive scientific proof linking many manmade chemicals to cancer, there is an overwhelming body of anecdotal evidence, say leading researchers and environmental activists. The battle against cancer of all kinds must start with banning substances we can identify as harmful and demanding more testing on the safety of new compounds.

"We have known for 50 years of the dangers of things like bisphenol A," says Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, referring to a substance found in the plastic used to line metal food cans and make baby bottles and rigid, water-cooler-sized water bottles. "In the body, it mimics estrogen, which obviously has an impact on breast and prostate cancers."

He cites research by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control that found 93 per cent of 5,000 people studied had bisphenol A in their bodies.

The ability to mimic or affect the production of hormones is shared by many man-made substances, adds Dr. Devra Davis, director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh and author of The Secret History of the War on Cancer.

"We are waging war against cancer but with the wrong weapons," she says. "We have known for decades about many man-made carcinogens but still continue to produce and use them."

When it comes to breast cancer, just one in nine women can trace the cause of the disease back to a genetic imperfection, she says. "The rest of them had something in the (genetic) makeup that reacted to an environmental trigger.

"We don't know all of them yet but we do know a good many and have ignored them."

At the heart of the debate over the environmental impact is a growing understanding of the causes and nature of many cancers, says Sharon Wood, chief executive officer of the Ontario region of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.

"Over the past 10 years, we have come to understand that the causes and relationships are increasingly complex," she says.

"In many cases there may not be single gene passed on, but perhaps a series of genes, all of which are susceptible to environmental factors. In fact, the seeds of cancer may be sown very early in life."

She cites the example of her own mother, who developed breast cancer in late middle age.

"She was raised on a farm and when the rest of the family worked in the fields, they put her in a seed bin to play with her dolls," she says. "The seed, however, was coated with formaldehyde to protect it against insects and rodents. We now know that formaldehyde is a carcinogen."

Lamber relates to Wood's story.

"Working in the emergy ward, we were constantly exposed to things we now know are carcinogens," she says. "We soaked instruments in formalin, which is based on formaldehyde. The fumes were enough to make you dizzy. We were exposed to X-ray radiation regularly. There were so many things that could have triggered the cancer."

Nor was there any relief off the job, she says. Sarnia, home to scores of chemical plants, has one of the highest incidences of cancers in the country.

"There is no such things as fresh air here," Lambert says."You get up in the morning and the car is always covered with this particulate. The air is full of toxins."

One of the paradoxes of the battle against cancer is that while we may have good reason to link many chemicals to cancer, politicians and courts demand scientific proof of that relationship before acting to ban them, points out Dr. Bruce Newbold, director of the McMaster Instittue for Environment and Health in Hamilton.

"Anecdotal evidence is not enough to take to court," he says.

In an effort to gain that scientific evidence, Lambert has been participating in a study on women's exposure to environment factors in the workplace, conducted by Drs. Jim Brophy and Margaret Keith of the University of Windsor. They are looking at the effects that toxins in the workplace have on women in agriculture, health care and auto manufacturing.

For Lambert, like most breast cancer victims, the priority is simple. "I just want to know what caused by breast cancer and why."