What Our Government Won't Tell Us About Carcinogens

by Robert Tufel

I opened up my local newspaper Feb. 1 to read that X- rays had just been declared carcinogenic in the 11th edition of the "Report on Carcinogens," published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program. This report is updated every two years and now has 58 substances that are known to cause cancer; 17 substances were added this year.

I was surprised to see X-rays (a type of ionizing radiation) as a new addition on the list because they have been a known carcinogen for some time. A medical textbook on brain tumors published in 1999 lists ionizing radiation as an established cause of brain tumors and cites studies done as far back as the 1970s and '80s.

As a matter of fact, the National Brain Tumor Foundation has been providing information about the risks of radiation for years. NBTF's "The Essential Guide to Brain Tumors" states "ionizing radiation (including X-rays) is a strong risk factor for brain tumors." This is so well accepted that not one of the health professionals who reviewed our guide prior to its publication commented on that fact. And the thousands of patients who received a copy of our guide were also made aware of this risk long before the Department of Health and Human Services decided to list it as a known carcinogen.

Why has the government waited until now to declare that X-rays are carcinogenic? The carcinogens report outlines the rigorous review process that each substance must go through before it makes the list. The list of health professionals who reviewed the report is impressive. The aim of the report is to "identify hazards to human health posed by carcinogenic substances."

But after all this effort, what really stood out for me is the report's acknowledgement that this list "may constitute only a fraction of actual human carcinogens." If we have known for some time that ionizing radiation is a carcinogen, how many other substances are being left off this list? As a person working with cancer patients, it troubles me that the government is not doing more to understand the causes of this disease.

Why not list every substance that we now know causes cancer? Because listing every known carcinogen would force the four government agencies (the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) responsible for "regulating hazardous substance and limiting the exposure to and the use of each substances" to take action? Because listing every known carcinogen would cause the public to stand up and say "Why aren't we doing more to prevent cancer when we know what's causing it?" Because listing all cancer causing substances would force businesses and professionals to find safer alternatives? Or perhaps because the government is concerned that listing all known carcinogens would cause the public to panic?

What if the federal government released a report on carcinogens and at the same time launched an educational campaign explaining to Americans how to protect themselves? What if the government announced increased funding for research on the causes of cancer? Then, instead of just a partial list of carcinogens, we might see a significant shift toward preventing cancer, a disease that will affect an astonishing 1 of every 2 men and 1 of every 3 women in the United States during their lifetime.

On May 7, I will join hundreds of brain-tumor patients and their supporters in Golden Gate Park for NBTF's annual fund-raising walk and community awareness event. I am sure that at some point during the day, a patient will ask me "What caused my brain tumor?" Or "How can I keep my kids from going through this?" I only wish that the latest "Report on Carcinogens" did more to answer these types of questions.