Yes, I believe that nuclear bomb testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s plays a role in the “cancer epidemic” that we are experiencing (radioactive fallout maps from testing in the US). I also believe that today’s cancers are the mere tip of an iceberg in so far as cancer is concerned, largely due to the human influence on the environment.
A few environmental toxins and cancers have a clear connection. Examples include: chimney sweepers and testicular cancer, uranium miners and lung cancer, sun worshippers and skin cancer, benzidine workers and bladder cancer, cigarette smokers and stomach cancer (as well as lung). However, not cigarette smoker or uranium miner (etc) gets lung or stomach cancer and for most cancers the connection between toxin and cancer is much less clear. Genes play a role in both protection and cause but even in this case, not everyone with a gene for prostate or breast cancer will get the disease.
With all this uncertainty about a potentially fatal disease, you would think that an intelligent human race would be cautious about new substances to which they could be exposed. However, from DDT in the 1950’s to dioxins in the 1980’s, from fire retardants to skin lotions, we constantly add chemicals to our environment. We are generally in denial – we like our chemicals and what they do for us. We apply them liberally to do what they are advertised to do (eg. keep away mosquitoes) without considering the possible consequences of our body absorbing the active ingredient. (In the case of mosquito lotion, what short circuit in our brains lets us believe that we can wear an insect poison without affecting ourselves?) Even non-chemicals can be harmful as we have seen the effect of microbeads from cosmetics entering the water system to adversely affect fish populations.
One of the more recent additions to the growing list of carcinogenic (cancer-causing) substances is glyphosate. Countries have banned it: the Netherlands, El Salvador and France and Brazil has a ban pending. I’m dismayed to discover that it doesn’t breakdown in the environment as I was lead to believe when it first came onto the market and that once it is leached into water, it barely breaks down at all! (Fortunately, most of it binds to the soil.) How could we have thought that something that kills almost all weeds would have no effect on other biological systems?
Once a connection between a substance and the existence of an environmental and health hazard, the challenge to change is enormous. Besides industrial dependence and political denial, questions abound. How do we make lotions and scrubs without microbeads – or parabens (another addition to the list of no-no’s)? How do we shift from Round-Up® dependence into the next phase of modern farming? And, even harder, how do we prevent ourselves from investing in another dead-end technology or by being duped by the next industrial innovation?
At the market level, prevention depends upon the ability of entirely independent scientific panels to do independent studies of new chemicals before they are released to the market. I don’t believe that companies like Monsanto deliberately try to poison the public; they are focussed on making money. Their preliminary work made the chemical look very safe – and they wanted to rush it to market. Where Monsanto and other companies err both ethically and morally is when infiltration or other interference with clear and independent research occurs - as Monsanto did recently in Germany when it "bought" the German Risk Assessment Panel. While this makes it difficult to decide whom to believe, it also creates suspicion of the original research and raises the questions, "Why would Monsanto worry about independent assessment? Do they already know something they don't want us to know?"
It is up for us to apply the “Precautionary Principle” and refuse to approve the release until confirmation of safety can be assured. That should be the role of government. Consumers should be able to trust that substances released for use are safe for us and the environment whether food, water or flame retardants.
Prevention probably also depends upon a healthy dose of scepticism. “If it seems too good to be true” – gets rid of all our weeds or kills all insect pests without side effects – “it probably IS too good to be true.”
