Niet-roken gerelateerde kanker neemt sterk toe

Volgens een persbericht van de Cancer Prevention Coalition misleidt de American Cancer Society het publiek. Ze is té sterk verbonden met gevestigde industriële belangen om nog objectief de trom te kunnen roeren.

Steeds meer niet-roken gerelateerde kankers zijn in opmars: in de laatste drie decennia is het aantal gevallen van kanker in de VS met 24% gestegen. Volgens de Cancer Prevention Coalition is dit vooral te wijten aan het gebruik van pesticiden in de landbouw.

Not surprisingly, the authoritative U.S. charity watchdog, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, has warned against the transfer of money from the public purse to private hands.  “The ACS is more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives.”

The American Cancer Society Misleads the Public in the May 26 Discovery Health Channel Program, Warns Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chairman, The Cancer Prevention Coalition

CHICAGO, May 24 /PRNewswire/ — In a one-hour special on the “TOP 10 CANCER MYTHS,” the American Cancer Society (ACS) will claim to set the record straight.  However, these claims are seriously flawed.

While admitting that number of people diagnosed with cancer is increasing, the ACS explains this away as due to aging of the population, and the frequency of cancer in the elderly.  However, federal statistics adjusted for aging show a 24% increased incidence rate over the last three decades.  What’s more, most major increases have involved non-smoking related cancers.  These cancers include:  non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, 87%; thyroid, 71%; testis, 67%; post-menopausal breast, 54%; and brain, 28%.  More disturbing is the escalating incidence of childhood cancers:  acute lymphocytic leukemia, 62%; brain, 50%; bone, 40%; and kidney, 14%.  Of related interest is an analysis of leading causes of death from 1973 to 1999.  Cancer has increased by 30%, while mortality from heart disease decreased by 21%.

Worse still, the ACS has failed to inform the public about scientifically well-documented causes of a wide range of non-smoking related cancers.  The ACS goes further by dismissing evidence on risks from domestic use of pesticides, although several studies have clearly shown a strong relationship with childhood cancers.  In its recommendation for high vegetable, fruit, and grain diets, ACS ignores the fact that these, including baby foods, are highly contaminated with carcinogenic pesticides, while ignoring the availability of safe organic products.  The ACS goes even further in dismissing such concerns. In its Cancer Facts and Figures 2002, ACS reassured that cancer risks from dietary pesticides, besides hazardous waste sites, and ionizing radiation from “closely controlled” nuclear plants, are at such low levels as to be “negligible.”

The CANCER MYTHS are consistent with its longstanding track record on prevention, policies, and conflicts of interest.

In 1978, the ACS refused a Congressional request to support the Clean Air Act.

In 1992, the ACS supported the Chlorine Institute by defending the continued use of carcinogenic chlorinated pesticides.

In 1993, just before PBS aired the Frontline special, “In Our Children’s Food,” the ACS came out in support of the pesticide industry.  In a damage- control memorandum, sent to some 48 regional divisions and their 3,000 local offices, the ACS trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer.  ACS also reassured the public that food contaminated with carcinogenic pesticides is safe, even for babies.

In 1994, the ACS published a highly flawed study designed to reassure women on the safety of dark permanent hair dyes, and to trivialize the risks of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, breast, and other cancers as documented in over six prior reports.

Analysis of the 1998 ACS budget revealed that it allocated less than 0.1% of its $700 million revenues to “Environmental Carcinogenesis.”

In 2000, it was discovered that the ACS had close ties to PR firms for the tobacco industry — Shandwick International, representing R.J. Reynolds Holdings, and Edelman, representing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company.  These firms were promptly dismissed once the embarrassing news leaked out.

This indifference or hostility of the ACS to cancer prevention is less surprising in view of its pervasive conflicts of interest with the cancer drug, petrochemical, cosmetics, power plants, and other industries.

Not surprisingly, the authoritative U.S. charity watchdog, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, has warned against the transfer of money from the public purse to private hands.  “The ACS is more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives.”

For a detailed critique of the ACS track record and policies, see the Cancer Prevention Coalition February 2003 “Stop Cancer Before It Starts Campaign” report at; the report has been endorsed by some 100 leading experts in cancer prevention, and representatives of consumer, environmental, and activist groups.

SOURCE  Cancer Prevention Coalition 

Geef een reactie

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *

Download poster


  • "Es ist schwieriger, eine vorgefaßte Meinung zu zertrümmern als ein Atom."
    (Het is moeilijker een vooroordeel aan flarden te schieten dan een atoom.)
    Albert Einstein

  • "Als je alles zou laten dat slecht is voor je gezondheid, dan ging je kapot"
    Anonieme arts

  • "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
    Sir Richard Doll, 2001

  • "Een leugen wordt de waarheid als hij maar vaak genoeg wordt herhaald"
    Joseph Goebbels, Minister van Propaganda, Nazi Duitsland

  • "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
    Mahatma Gandhi

  • "There''s no such thing as perfect air. If there was, God wouldn''t have put bristles in our noses"
    Coun. Bill Clement

  • "Better a smoking freedom than a non-smoking tyranny"
    Antonio Martino, Italiaanse Minister van Defensie

  • "If smoking cigars is not permitted in heaven, I won't go."
    Mark Twain

  • I've alllllllways said that asking smokers "do you want to quit?" and reporting the results of that question, as is, is horribly misleading. It's a TWO part question. After asking if one wants to quit it must be followed up with "Why?" Ask why and the majority of the answers will be "because I'm supposed to" (victims of guilt and propaganda), not "because I want to."
    Audrey Silk, NYCCLASH