Tobacco Documents Online

WALL S1RE~~ ^I vLUZNi)L - I HurZSvr)! OCTt)QrIZ ~(o P EIu6`~v9-QbZ6St -` - War on Car~er Is Hurt By Anirrial-Test Mght, : Nroves to Ban Products Validity of Much Lab Work Widely Doubted;.People Resist Changing Habits . 'We're Learning the Causes' ~ . •-_'By RICH ,TA60SLOY9KY ~•. Sfa//.Reporfero/Tf6wALLSTREBTIOVRNAf. WASHINGTON-An old wisecrack holds that "all the things I really like to do are either immoral; illegal or fattening." To that, many Americans today would probably add: "'or cause cancer." - Within the past few years, scientists have ldentified a seemingly endless array of sub-I stances as carcinogenic, or cancercausing. The parade began in 1989 with the artificial I r sweetener cyclamate. Then came vinyl chloride, which was widely-used in plastics; saccharin_: another sweetener; Tris, the flame-retardant used in children's clothes; '-asbestos and many others. Now the govern- ment has plans to ban nitrite, the food pre- servative and additive that helps give ba- con,, hot dogs and other processed meats thefr flavor and color. ' These reports-many of them based on ,rs tests in-which laboratory animals ate huge T.,17tis u the second oJ two artfcles _ on cancer research M. '-doses of ~the, chemicals-have left -people 'conhtsed and 'shaken. Many of them ques- :'- tlon whether studies done on rats and mice "have any.validity for humans. And they wonder.whether It won't eventually turn.oot .=,t that nearly evgryth ing can •cause cancer in 'the artificial conditions of the lab. s`i5"Peopte are bewiWered:' concedes Dr. _: :Sidney Wolfe of the HealthResearch Group, ` a P,alph Nader-affilia'.ed organvatian that ';has done much to pu'ntidza therisks oCvar : fous suspect substances. "But many scientists say there~are under, lying reasons for the spate of cancer-scare -=teports. More and more, scientists are ccn- ~ eluding that cancer is really a family of di- ; seases ttiggered, not by our bodies. tut by the world around us. And,'armed with new ~ and more-sophisticated detection methods, they are only now identifying such "envi- r tvnmental" carciaogens that have been arvund for years. ; Searching for Causes ` 3" .For the first time in human history ~ive're learning the causes of cancer," exul Dr. Itving J. Selikoff, director of the Envl tvnmental Sciences Iabotatory at New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine. That view isn't unanimous, however: In- deed, researchers around the nation are ex- amining a broad variety of theories about cancer. Some scientists, for example, are trying to establish a link between cancer and the body's aging process. And in the past, cancer theories have tended to wax and wane in scientific popularity. But in emphasizing environmental fac- tors, many scientists-especially in govern- ment=now believe they are on the right road. They think that between 60% and 9oN of all cancers are caused by environmental factors,- which can range from cigarets toI chemicals to dietary habits. If that's true, J the researchers say, then many cance Irs may be preventable, at least theoretically. But such a conclusion raises a host of prob- lems for government regulators, industry and Americans in general. "Americans have been used to biving themselves out of health risks," says Donald Kennedy, Commissioner of the.U.S.. Food and Drug Administration. In the past, he ex- plains: citizens have supported spending for research that ir.: turn has led to a simple so- ;Jution_ a singleture{or.a disease, such as a -polio vaccine. But with. cancer, he says, the solution that.many people thought they were buying thrrnugh huge-spending hasn't turned up.~ "Now they're. being told that they need to take precautions, and maybe change lifelong habits, and they're sayine "1What's going on?' `4Ir. Kennedy says Annoyed Housewife The reaction of Pat Molenda, a suburban .Chicago housewife, is typical. "I'm sick of hearing thatthings cause cancer," Mrs. Mo- lenda says as she shops for groceries. "lf you believed it all, you'd be afraid to go out In the air, eat, swim or do anything." The issue is even tougher because emo- tlons run so high. "People fear cancer des- perately," Mr: Kennedy says, and with good reason. It is currently the nation's second- biggest killer (behind heart disease). The American Cancer Society estimates that 39(I,o00 Americans will die of cancer this ~'.year: about one out of every four people ~ tKm alive in the U.S. eventually will develop some form of the disease, the society adds. It has been known for.200 years that some substances can cause cancer, But rec- ognition ognition of the apparent pervasiveness of en- vironmental carcinogens, and the accompa- ,:aying;change in.research emphasis, are fairly 'recent developments. "Five years ago, no one would have dreamed" that many now-suspect substances might cause cancer, says Dr. Arthur Upton, director of the National Cancer Institute. = -' Dr. Wolfe of the Nader group sue°gests that one reason for the flurry of reports about widely used substances is that "compressed into-a very short period of time, you've bad a tremendous output of studies that should have been done years „ago." For instance, be cites•aa ingredient used for many years in numecws coal-tar hair dyes. But tests oa the chemical weren't begun until just a few years ago. Only last year, the FDA disclosed that the substance was carcinogenic and moved to restrict its use. . . _ - I As tests continue, still more comtnon ' Ptrase Turn to Pnge 41. Column J-,':-I

l 4, I b~,)A L 1.. --J ~ol.tIM ~FI~L - Rur" !SI) A~y LJC«~G• rZ ~(c ~ Elusive Quest: Cancer War Is Hurt By La.b-Test Fight, Product Bans ~ I Continued From First Paoe substances probably will be identified as cancer-eausers, "I think it'.s much too early to say we've seen all we're going to see," Dr. Upton says. Mr. Kennedy of the FDA agrees: "I think we're going to have a few more nasty surprises," he says. But opin- tons differ on how much is yet to come. Such predictions are difficult because some carcinogens might still be unrecog- niied Many cancer-causing substances may take yEars to show their effects; lung ean- cets are only now developing in thousands of people who handled asbestoss in World War II' ^";-.l,a, ^- aiiAnd there is concern that any impact from the many synthetic organic chemicals Introd'uced in the 19rps isn't yet reflected in th'e tnoderately rising cancer rates. Dr. Up,, ton ot the Nationali Cancer Institute says there isn't any evidence of such a "cancer tiomti' waiting to explode in the statistics. But: he addA "It's high time we concerned , ourselves more about the possibility of an~ epidemic in the making." one rnajor, and still largely unexplored, area of' research is the interaction among carcinogens. While mosLlaboratory tests fo- cits on the properties of a single substance. people in everyday life may be exposed'to dozens of different carcinogens. So.far, there isw.tmuch evidence ab'out. `such interactions. But what is known is fas- dnating-and maybe frightening. It'spossi- ' ble in some cases that combining carcino- gen•,s doesn't merely'increase a person's risk butcompounds It. Forexample., the Depart- 'meat of Health, Education and Welfare sayss studies indicate that asbestos workers who smoke are up to.30hmesmore likelytodp- velbp lung cancer than are their co-workers who don't smoke. They are up to 90 times tmre likely to get cancer than iare nonsmok- ers who haven't been exposed to, asbestos, HEW sayg: Sucti~questions lend special urgency to the laboratory' tests:. But the public. Iti seems: ts becoming increasingly skeptical about reports from those labs. ' Peaple. says the FDA's Mr, Kennedy, "tr.istrust sei.entiticc prcnoutcements„ espe- cially.tederaliones, atnurcarcinoxens. Their I mistrust: isamplifled when the judgments ~ touch substances t.5ar1hey have come to re- gardwithtr.ist,.oreven~.affection." Mr..Kennedyshomid know. Just before fiee becarr:e F7AA chief In 'Siarch. 1977, thee agency disclosed tiiat.saccharin apparently caused bladder cancer. In test animals. The- ,new commusslonerr immediately got caught in the hrestorm of public and Industry pro, ~ testas touched off by Ltie. FD A's pl an to . ban the arrticiaal' sweete.ner- Eventu.ally. Con-gressstepped in and last year delayed the ban for.atleast 18 months. The saccharin report, like manyy other studies on carcinogens, was based on results of . tests on rats.Yet these tests are them,selves conttorersial. They are often at, tacKed by industrygroups:.and mistrusted byconsumen„ on ttiegroundthatrau and humanv are so different: Even scientists using these studies don't consider: them in- fallible, but they defen& the tests as being the nxst reliable available. The animals in such tests are otten fed huge quantities of the suspect chemical- quantities that many people, including in- Idustry groups and some scientists, term wholly unrealistic. Responding to the recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study IfNdng rutntes to eancer, the American Farm Bureau Federationi charged. "A hu- I man would have to consume nearly 6U6~ pounds of cured meats per day toiequal,the dosage: gjven, to the test animals." And a cosmetics trade group, challenging a hair- dye tesh,contended that a woman would have to "drink" 25 bottles of hair dye a day for, life to equal the dose given the test ani, mals. , But many scientists answer that; sucfi doses are needed todptect any carcinogznic effecL While it's true that too much of any- thing can.ben fatalj,they say, onlyacompa• tatively few things kill by cancer. And' the huge dmses are needed to detect that carcin- ogeruc effecL That's important because even small cancer-causing effects could' cause manyy deaths. If a given dose of something causes cancer in only one oF1o,007 people:,it could Istill trigger thousands of cases- Yet it would ~,takehuge numbers ofrata, and manyexpen- Isve studies, tnestablish allnk. So scientists increase the dosage to see the effects more readily. But' it isn't clear whether. huge doses mightNde a "threshold" limit.In people-a dose level,under which a carcinogen is safe. I I Beerntly, Shell Oil Co~ argued'for the exis• tence of such "practical no-effect"levels. The Cancer Irstitute's Dr. Upton maln- taina thatd,r,ich threshold limits exist, they never h'ave been demonstrated seientifl- cally. And he says there's at least some evl- dence that "there may indeed be a small ef- fecv even in a small dose."' TEerisks are suffieient to justify government action, he says: "m we wait, then we may have d6oimed manypeople.'.' .. Researchers are developing other tests to complementl and maybe surplant, lab-am- mal tests..For instance, Bruce.Ames, a Unt- vetsity of'. California scientist„ recentlyy de- veloped arelattvelg fastl. cheap test'using bacten3 to measure a substance's ability to alter genetiec rrateriaL Such "mutagenic" pmperties tnayy indicate cancer-causing aotl'.ityaswe.ll. Further development off such , tests could alter the way industryy andgow ertunent de.'il witbcarcinoQens, somepecple ' belleve.. TTte. FDA's Mr. Kenaedy, tor one, : . foreseess a timewhen a senes of "short, fast. incredibly'sensitive tests" couldbetaed to deterrninewhethersubstances cause cancer. But that day may stllll be a wayo.ff.. Monte ThrodaNi a Monsanto Co. vice prest, dent forr tPrtfmical matten. says Ltao "wee don't see the light at'Lhe end of the tunnell yeV' for the.fu.ll reiiabiliry.ot:such tests. r