The President's Cancer Panel says it's time to regulate chemicals

The President's Cancer Panel is made up of three medical doctors who are experts in the field of oncology. They are about as mainstream medical as you can get. Their job (in a nutshell) is to assess the current cancer climate in the US and make recommendations to the President about how to handle it. Last week the panel released its annual report (for 2008-09), which was focused on environmental risks, namely chemicals. It's a stunner. The panel blames lax regulation for the fact that we're all walking around with hundreds of chemicals in our bloodstream manifesting in increased cancer risks. Here's a quote from NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof on the subject of the panel's report:

Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study warns that: “to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’

(I highly recommend reading his op-ed on the study.)

(Did you know that there are over 80,000 chemicals used in the US and only a few hundred have been tested for safety?)

I think what is so stunning about the study is that for so long environmentalists have been pooh-poohed for raising alarms over toxins and chemicals. Now here's a panel of doctors (two of which were appointed by George W. Bush) telling us we should be:

• eating organic foods and free-range meats whenever possible
• avoiding BPA and phthalates and drinking water from glass, stainless steel or safe plastic containers
• not microwaving foods in plastic containers
• filtering tap water
• avoiding toys and foods containing endocrine disrupters
• using databases like The Household Products Database (No way. It sucks. Use the Cosmetics Database and the Good Guide.) to research common products

This is all stuff that the green movement has been advocating for years, so for this to be directly linked to cancer by this mainstream panel is huge. But what will ultimately become of it? Right now it's up to the individual to make informed choices (which typically involves a lot of research). When will the responsibility be placed on manufacturers? Will we ever see stricter regulation, or will the deep pockets of industry and lobbyists continue to beat it down?

The panel stresses that children, in particular, should be shielded as much as possible from toxins:

An analysis by the National Academy of Science found that children are particularly vulnerable to environmental contaminants for several reasons. Due to their smaller size, children’s exposures to toxics are disproportionately large compared with adults. Because their metabolic pathways are immature (particularly during fetal development and in the first months after birth), they are slower to metabolize, detoxify, and excrete many environmental chemicals. As a result, toxins remain active in their bodies for a longer period of time than would be the case in adults.

So, what do we do? Make the best decisions we can for our families based on the information available. Refer to books on the subject of toxins. (I find myself reaching for Healthy Child Healthy World when in doubt.) Use the Environmental Working Group's form to send a message to your Senators asking them to co-sponsor the Safe Chemicals Act. Pay attention. Demand reform. What else?