Breast cancer reality check: Toxic chemicals in cosmetics may be the biggest cause

October 7, 4:41 PMExtreme Weight Loss ExaminerMark Rubi

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Extreme Weight Loss Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

A woman dies of breast cancer every 13 minutes

It's time for a breast cancer reality check: Despite all the hype about obesity, toxic chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products may be the biggest cause. As everyone in America seems to know, even the National Football League, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Even if an average guy had not noticed the hundreds, if not thousands, of articles devoted to breast cancer in the last week or so, watching NFL football this past weekend would surely have cured him of his ignorance. Football fields all across the nation were adorned not only with "pink ribbon" logos, but players and officials were wearing a variety of pink wrist bands, shoes, and gloves to show the NFL's support for Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

The reason that a reality check is needed is that many of the articles seem to place the blame for breast cancer primarily on obesity, as if  a major new discovery had been made. In fact, no such new discovery has been made about obesity alone being a causing agent for breast cancer, particularly breast cancer for pre-menopausal women.

Those studying breast cancer have long tried to place the blame for this unfortunate disease at the door of obesity. By doing so, they can blame the victims, even though the causes for obesity, at least to the extreme currently plaguing America, are neither well known nor understood. The most commonly repeated mantra in the health care community is that obesity is nearly completely self-imposed, despite growing evidence to the contrary. Environmental factors such as food and water toxins, cellular level food hypersensitivites, and even a virus are all routinely dismissed because it easier to blame the victims for the pollution which now makes it necessary for millions of Americans to choose to drink bottled water.

Getting back to the issue of obesity and breast cancer, the federal goverments' National Cancer Institue has an entire web page devoted to the connection between the two, as if the connection were clearly shown and beyond dispute. But now for the reality check.

Science Daily published an article in 2007 titled "Obesity-breast Cancer Link May Be Due To Fat Tissue-derived Hormone Leptin." Leptin has been tied to an increase in obesity as well as breast cancer.

WebMD published in 2006 an article that "Extra Weight May Lower Risk for Younger Women" and had an article in 2002 pointing out that "Weight-Related Increases in Breast Cancer Risk Linked to Estrogen."

The Harvard University Gazette said in 2006 that "Obesity protects against breast cancer: Cancer protection tied to age, hormones."

An article published in OncologySTAT in April of 2009 said that "Hyperinsulinemia Mediates Obesity's Breast Cancer Risk." For those not fully understanding what that means, Wikipedia says that  "Hyperinsulinemia, or hyperinsulinaemia is a condition in which there are excess levels of circulating insulin in the blood. It commonly presents in people with diabetes mellitus type 2 or insulin resistance and is often associated with metabolic syndrome." A symptom of metabolic syndrome is obesity for many, but not all people.

To be fair, however, what of the studies that claim that obesity is a cause and not just another symptom? The Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2005 published a study called "Obesity and Early-Stage Breast Cancer" which concluded that "weight and weight gain are associated with increased breast cancer recurrence and mortality." This was an interesting conclusion. since the title of the piece suggests there is a tie between obesity and the early stages of breast cancer, while the conclusion leaps all the way to "recurrence." Even those not in the medical field would be hard pressed to categorize recurrence of a life-threatenng condition as "early stage."

In addition, the author of the study, who is from the National Cancer Institute, acknowledges that there are significant "study limitations, including reliance on self-reported weight, a nonvalidated recurrence methodology, and a lack of information on adjuvant therapy." More damning, though, is the fact that the author has a severe conflict of commitment. The study also includes the "Author's Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest: The author or their immediate family members have indicated a financial interest."

This raises the question of how many in the field of cancer research have significant financial ties to not only the research but the pharmaceutical response to that research? More importantly, it raises the question of how many have financial ties to the real causes of cancer?

What are the real causes of cancer, including breast cancer? The answer is carcinogenic toxins. According to the American Cancer Society's "Known and Probable Human Carcinogens" web page, "Cancer is caused by changes (mutations) in a cell's DNA" and "substances and exposures that can lead to cancer are called carcinogens." The ACS page lists many things as environmental factors, but certainly does not list them in order of probable cancer causes. "Lifestyle factors" are listed first and include nutrition, tobacco use, and physical activity. The list does not include obesity, unless it falls under the category of etcetera.

It is interesting that the last two things on the list are the most likely causes of most cancer. Those two things are "household exposures, and pollution."

Pollution has long garnered  a great deal of media attention, going back to the build up to and creation of Earth Day. But the sad fact is that Americans are very visually oriented when it comes to pollution. This means if they cannot actually see it, they do not get up in arms about it. The result of this reliance on "seeing is believing" is that our air and water may look cleaner now than they did 40 years ago, the fact is that more toxins are in our air and water than ever before.

Growing evidence, however, is beginning to show that it just might be the toxins that we willingly submit ourselves to that are causing the greatest damage. What toxins do Americans willingly submit themselves to again and again? People might be surprised to find out that it is not just cleaning products that we have to watch out for, but the things we put on our bodies on a daily basis. These include cosmetics, deodorants, hair care products, lotions and creams, and many other personal care products.

The state of California passed the Safe Cosmetics Act in 2005 which required manufactures to supply the state with lists of ingredients which cause cancer or reproductive health issues. The state list includes 785 things that raise health concerns, including more than 550 that are known to cause cancer. It is interesting to note that California is the only state to do this. More interesting, still, is that the cancer causing ingredients are not banned by the state. And they certainly are not banned by the Food and Drug Administration, which apparently takes cancer causing chemicals in personal care products about as seriously as the more than 2000 chemical additives now allowed in foods, including more than 700 which have not even been tested for toxicology research. Which is to say, if it's good for business, it must be good for Americans.

A study published by EnviroCancer at Cornell University in 2008 titled "Breast Cancer - The Estrogen Connection: Cosmetics and More" concluded that "Ingredients in a wide variety of cosmetics and personal care products can mimic the effects of the hormone estrogen. Scientists are concerned that even at low levels, these environmental estrogens may work together with the body’s own estrogen to increase the risk of breast cancer."

An artilce published by Organic Consumers in 2004 referenced a study which tied breast cancer to parabens, which are described as "(alkyl esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid) are widely used as antimicrobial preservatives in thousands of cosmetics, personal care products, pharmaceutical products, and food." In 2004, parabens were used in more than 13,000 different cosmetic products. Among the conclusions of the study were that "the chemical form of the parabens found in 18 of the 20 tumors tested indicated that they originated from something applied to the skin, the most likely candidates being deodorants, antiperspirants, creams, or body sprays.

The Environmental Working Group has a cosmetic safety database called Skin Deep which reviews the ingredients of personal care products. These include make-up, skin care, hair care, eye care, nail care, baby care, oral care and even fragrances. They rank the risks associated with the products on a scale from 0 to 10, based on a variety of risk factors, including cancer. Those rated 0-2 are listed as low risk (green light), those with a rating of 3-6 are considered medium risk (yellow light), and those with a rating from 7-10 are considered high risk (red light).

An example of their ratings under make-up is for "foundation," which is the beginning of being made up for most who wear make-up. The Skin Deep database rates 2,141 foundation products. Of those, only 209 are given a green light. A yellow light went to 1475, and a red light for the highest risk was awarded to 465 products. Among the brand names of products recieving a 10, or the highest risk, foundation make-up are NARS, Cover Girl, Elizabeth Arden, Ultima II, Almay, and Revlon. It should be noted that these companies have many products and that a poor ranking for a particular product does not necessarily correlate to a poor ranking for all their products.

During Breast Cancer Awareness Month, major retailers such as Safeway are gathering money for breast cancer research by asking customers if they want to "round up" their grocery bill in order to donate. Around the stores, pink tags are used to indicate the companies that are committed to finding a cure for breast cancer. Many of these companies are the very same ones who use cancer causing ingredients in their products, according to the Skin Deep database.

Dr. Samuel S. Epstein is an internationally recognized expert on cancer and cancer prevention. He is the founder and chaiman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. He was also the whistle-blower who made public the dangers of growth hormones given to cattle. In 2009, he published a book called Toxic Beauty which outlines the dangers of the ingredients used in cosmetics and other personal care products.

To complete the reality check, the following questions must be asked: Is it just a coindidence that the the companies and industries that provide much of the revenue for cancer research are also the same as the makers of the products which cause the problem? And is it also just a coincidence that the connection between their products and cancer is minimized by the "researchers" who depend upon their funds?

Is it OK to excuse the poisoning of our bodies and environments by corporations just because those same companies donate lots of money to researching the problems they caused in the first place? Is it acceptable that our regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency seem more concerned about the bottom line of big business than the health and well being of American citizens?

 Is is too much to ask of our National Institutes of Health that we be given just the facts about breast cancer and other forms of the disease? Must we really have to pore through pseudo-science and scientific sounding and, seemingly government approved, apologistic efforts designed to move the focus for the causes of cancer away from the producers of carcinogens to lay the blame at the feet of the victims?

Many Americans are getting rightfully angry.  Especially those who have had to deal with cancer or who have had loved ones deal with or die from the condition. Is the "business" of searching for a cure too lucrative to ever find one? SInce cancer research in America makes up the world's most lucrative charity, the financial incentive to maintain the status quo is substantial.

The only way that we can really cure the plague of cancer  is to recognize and prevent the causes. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That is true even if it billions of pounds, billions of Euros, or billions of dollars.

Photo thanks to: the National Football League, the Cancer Prevention Coalition, the National Institutes of Health, Hope for Cancer, Change.Org, and laurarhodes.blogspot.com/