CURIOUS CANCER SOCIETY TRUTHS
by Robin Wheeler, Owner, Edible Landscapes

A few years ago, I wrote a “rant” following Breast Cancer Awareness Month, publicly boycotting the event because of its failure to consider risk reduction as a major component of its Awareness education. That’s why I was so interested to see a booklet on display this time, called “Healthy Eating – Reducing your risk of cancer”. I immediately opened it to the Cancer Issues “Organic Foods” and “Pesticides”. But I was left very confused. The actual heading was “Are Organic Foods any Healthier?” Their findings? "... there's not much nutritional advantage for you. “ That’s funny. I had recently posted some of the results of an American review of 41 worldwide scientific studies, in which the finding was that organic crops contained an average 29.3% more magnesium, 27% more vitamin C, 21% more iron, 13.6 more phosphorus, 26% more calcium, 11% more copper, 42% more manganese, 9% more potassium and 15% lower nitrates. A U.K. compendium of 400 published papers not only reflected this, but also found these crops to be higher in phytonutrients, compounds which protect plants from pests and disease and are often beneficial in the treatment of cancer. (The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine, 2001 – www.foodisyourbestmedicine.com) .

My Canadian Cancer Society booklet went on to say that “Organic meats aren’t any lower in fat (a strange comment, since it is the hormones and pesticide residues stored in the fat we are concerned about in cancer risk reduction)... aren't lower in any chemical residues either. “ Gee, how could a cow NOT fed hormones, grain with herbicide residues and antibiotics, in turn NOT have fewer of these residues in its tissues? I guess the Cancer people haven’t read “My year in Meats” by Ruth Ozeki. They certainly haven’t seen the DES Action Canada “Hormonal Pollution Alert” package. And they haven’t read the audit by the European Commission on the hormones used in Canadian beef, such as estradiol, extra amounts of which, consumed in our meals, they describe as “a complete carcinogen”. (see Watershed Sentinel June/July 01 for sources and more info).

The Cancer book then states of conventional and organic crops, that “ … both are exposed to similar environmental pollutants and both contain natural toxicants like nitrate ...”. That’s funny. Again, tests have proven the natural nitrate level to be much lower in organic produce, and why don’t they understand that if I don’t spray my crops, they obviously won’t be exposed to the same level of “environmental pollutants”?

More worrisome was the very short comment on pesticides. “ … traces of pesticides are not considered a health risk”. Wow! What are they spending all that research money on?
A visit to www.stopcancer.org has some pretty interesting things to say about pesticides – how about the top groups of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma sufferers? Yup - conventional farmers, pesticide applicators, golf course supervisors … and home pesticides were linked to leukemia in children in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute as far back as 1987. The DES Society has been linking the pesticide/hormone disrupter/cancer connection for years. Hasn’t the Cancer Society seen any of these items? Even our most darling Roundup has just been placed on the Hormone Disrupter list by two different studies. And it is now proved that even household pets have more cancer where home pesticides are used.

The Cancer book explains that less than 2% of fresh produce is found to contain residue levels “in excess of what is allowed”, without pointing out that the allowable levels have been raised in the past 7 years, likely to bring Canada into line with Free Trade expectations, to allow the more heavily sprayed produce of other countries, including the U.S.

Of course, the clincher in the Cancer Society book, on priming the reader on how to figure out whether they should believe a study or not, is whether or not the Canadian Cancer Society is listed as supporting the statement. – without attributing a traceable reference to a single study in their booklet.

These are worrisome statements, especially when we know that the pharmaceutical companies have a huge stake in the Cancer Society’s agenda. Is it possible for those with a vested interest in the cancer “industry” to offer objective findings and guidelines? With so many (interestingly) non-profit groups now advocating reduced pesticide exposure as part of a risk reduction program, at what point would it become criminal to devalue information that could save lives?

Although there has not been a peep on this topic from our own medical establishment, I am not alone in my cynicism. Breast Cancer groups in Montreal and San Francisco are attempting to draw public scrutiny to the ties between large corporations and Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Samuel Epstein from the University of Illinois School of Public Health, when approaching the American Cancer Society about invisible results of millions of dollars of risk reduction spending, discovered “examples of frank hostility to cancer prevention”. There is dialogue going on out there. It is just not being done where it will do the most good – in the homes of a susceptible public.

Robin Wheeler is the owner of Edible Landscaping and author of the Gardening Book Gardening for the Faint of Heart.