Turf Line News

December 2011/ January 2012

Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/50980

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 18 of 55

Continued From Previous Page the authors state," A positive family history and/or shared environmental exposure to agricultural chemicals play an important role to the development of cancer" (3). These effects may be particularly evident in children: a systemic review published just this year from the University of Ottawa found that exposures to residential pesticides or insecticides in utero or during childhood were linked with significantly higher rates of childhood leukemia (4). As is the case with most population-based research, not every study has the same findings. And the specific question of whether a ban of cosmetic pesticide use will lead to decreases in BC's cancer rates cannot be answered conclusively. The exact extent of cancer attributable to cosmetic pesticide exposure is unlikely ever to be definitively specified for the following reasons: • A randomized, controlled trail, in which individuals are randomly assigned to be exposed to pesticides or not, with a record of cancer rates in each group, would be the optimal scientific design to answer this question. For ethical reasons, such as a study will never be conducted. • The amount of time between exposure to a cancer-causing agent and the development of cancer is many years; such long term research is rare. • Methods don't exist for measuring accurate exposure to pesticides. Biomarkers in the blood offer promise for future research. • Most research looks at short-term, high intensity exposures (such would be the case for home use of cosmetic pesticides) are not well-established. • The combination of different exposures and risk factors is very likely highly important, but very few studies to date have looked at multiple risk factors. This is due to the difficulties of identifying, quantifying, and analyzing many variables at the same time – not only different pesticides, but different lifestyles, diets, and so on. Despite these limitations, there is evidence that suggests that bans do result in lower cancer rates. Lower rates of lymphoma have been reported in countries after they enact pesticide bans (e.g., Sweden, Finland, Denmark), whereas declines are not observed in countries without such bans (e.g., UK, Norway, Israel) (5). Given current evidence, coupled with the probability that a definitive cause –and- effect relationship between cosmetic pesticide use and cancer is unlikely to be firmly established in the foreseeable future, I believe it is prudent to take protective measures regarding cosmetic pesticides. Cosmetic pesticides are not necessary for everyday life, and exposure can be eliminated. The unfortunate farmer who has developed lymphoma because of pesticide exposure provide an indication of cancer risk for the rest of the population, much in the way that a canary provides an early warning of toxic gases in a coal mine. We should heed this warning, ban cosmetic pesticides, and protect the health of BC residents. Sincerely yours, Carolyn C. Gotay The University Of British Columbia School Population and Public Health; James Mather Building, 5804 Fairview Avenue, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z3 Tel: 604-822-2772 • Fax: 604-822-4994 References: 1. Spinelli, J. (2008).Pesticides, soft tissue, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Acta Oncologica 47:335-6 2. Bassil, K,et al. (2007). Cancer health effects of pesticides. Canadian Family Physician 53:1704-11. 3. McDuffie, HH, et al. (2009). Clustering of cancer among families of cases with Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL), multiple myeloma (MM), non-hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and control subjects. BMC Cancer (9:70). 4. Dreiher, J, Kordysh, E. (2006). Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and pesticide exposure: 25 years of research. Acta Haemetol 116:153-64 5. Turner, MC, et al. (2010). Residential pesticides and childhood leukemia: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Environmental health perspectives 118:33-41.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Turf Line News - December 2011/ January 2012