The lower a person s socioeconomic status, the greater the risk of cancer. Those are the findings from a report released last Friday by the American Cancer Society (ACS). The association is especially strong among lung cancer patients, for whom death rates are four to five times higher in less educated populations than they are among those with the highest level of education. The apparent relationship between cancer rates and economic status echoes a much earlier statement made by Dr. Samuel A Broder, former director of the National Cancer Institute, who in 1989 referred to poverty as a carcinogen.
But the language of the ACS s alarming headline Poverty is a Carcinogen: Does Anyone Care? does not sit well with ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, who believes labeling poverty a carcinogen dilutes the meaning of the word. In that case, we could also label sedentary behavior a carcinogen.
Indeed, says ACSH s Dr. Josh Bloom. A carcinogen is a substance, not a behavior, which is more aptly considered a risk factor for cancer not a carcinogen.
ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross agrees that the statement is more confusing than helpful, since he doubts anyone would voluntarily choose to live in poverty.
ACSH s Susan Ingber wonders if the word carcinogen was used as a political maneuver specifically to elicit greater public reaction. When people hear that word, she observes, they think the risk of cancer is more imminent and may take steps to improve upon poor lifestyle choices, while when people hear the word risk factor, they may more easily ignore the issue altogether, or delay action.
