In a recent New York Times article, reporter Denise Grady sheds light on a report stating that too little of the money spent on breast cancer research goes toward finding environmental causes of the disease and ways to prevent it.
The report, Breast Cancer and the Environment Prioritizing Prevention came from a committee created by the Department of Health and Human Services under the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act passed in 2008. A third of the members of the committee consisted of scientists, a third were government officials and a third were from advocacy groups.
However, what the media usually consider environmental factors pesticides, chemicals, etc. are merely one area of focus. The environmental factors as defined in the report broadly include behaviors, such as alcohol intake and exercise; exposures to chemicals such as pesticides, industrial pollutants, consumer products and drugs; radiation; and social and socioeconomic factors.
ACSH s Dr. Ruth Kava believes that behavioral factors, for example the behavioral antecedents to obesity an independent risk factor for breast cancer should probably be examined further.
The use of the term environmental factors is misleading, and I believe intentionally so, says Dr. Bloom. Most people reading the headline will automatically jump to the conclusion that breast cancer is associated with all the chemical toxins we are supposedly bathing in, which isn t true. In fact, there is not a shred of credible evidence that we are being poisoned and subsequently developing cancer or anything else. An equally accurate headline would be Breast Cancer and Meatloaf Prioritizing Prevention. But this wouldn t fit the obvious agenda here.
