© 2001 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 93, No. 18, 1372,
September 19, 2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press
NEWS |
Federal Carcinogen Report Debuts New List of Nominees
A substance found in shampoos and another in toilet bowl cleanser, two chemicals produced from fat that drips when meat or fish is cooking, and the millions of neutrons that bombard you when you take an airplane ride have all been nominated for inclusion in the 11th edition of the federal Report on Carcinogens.
Also on the list are several other forms of radiation, three viruses, and industrial agents like dyes and drying agents (see box).
Anyone, from citizens to scientists, can nominate a substance to be included in the report, which is prepared biennially by the National Toxicology Program, housed at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Some substances reviewed are "known to be a human carcinogen" on the basis of data from human studies that range from cell research to epidemiologic meta-analyses. Others are "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens" based on data from animal studies.
The list of nominated substances was published in July in the Federal Register for public comment. After the comment period, this list will undergo a lengthy review that includes an exhaustive literature search and scrutiny by three scientific panels. After the National Toxicology Program approves the final list, it will be first submitted to the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services for approval and then submitted to Congress. The final list of carcinogens is slated for publication in 2004.
By itself, the Report on Carcinogens has no teeth—it does not carry the force of law. It is for information only and is limited in what it offers. Because no risk assessments have been conducted, the report cannot say whether exposure to the carcinogens poses a risk to people in their daily lives. That’s up to federal, state, and local health regulatory and research agencies to determine, said William Jameson, Ph.D., who leads and coordinates the effort to produce the report. "Our job is to inform the public of potential cancer hazards."
Heeding the List
Jameson said it is up to individuals to decide how relevant the list is to them. He knows some people pay attention because, when both the initial nominations and the final results are made public, he receives phone calls and letters—especially when pharmaceutical agents are listed, as tamoxifen was in the 9th report and steroidal estrogen was in the 10th edition. "I understand their concern and I advise them to speak to their physicians to determine their own risk-benefit ratio," he said.
Some states help their residents make that determination. California, for example, usually includes the federal slate of carcinogens on its own state list. In 1986, voters passed proposition 65, which imposes controls on chemicals that can cause cancer. Restrictions range from mandatory warning labels to an outright ban on use. "I think it’s a good thing, because the role of the government is to give us such information, but how you perceive it depends on how paranoid you are," said Nicholas Hooper, Ph.D., of the Department of Toxic Substances Control at the California Department of Health Services.
Others are not convinced. Bruce Ames, Ph.D., a biochemist at the University of California at Berkeley, calls himself a leading "contrarian in the hysteria over tiny traces of chemicals that may or may not cause cancer. If you have thousands of hypothetical risks that you are supposed to pay attention to, that completely drives out the major risks you should be aware of," he said. "I’m more interested in whether kids wear helmets when they ride their bikes, or if they eat enough fruits and vegetables."
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||