Overlooking the Evidence on Environmental links to Breast Cancer

In an excellent review of the media's response to evidence of environmental toxins and breast cancer, author Miranda C. Spencer does a break down of the media's behavior over the last several decades. Her article appeared in the latest edition of "Extra!" the magazine of FAIR(Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) Feb 2009.

A study issued in May 2007 by researchers at the Silent Spring Institute and three other institutions including Harvard Med School reviewed and identified some 216 chemicals that induce mammary tumors in animals. The study appeared as a special supplement in the journal Cancer. They stated that "laboratory research provides evidence that environmental pollutants may contribute to breast cancer risk by damaging DNA, promoting tumor growth or increasing susceptiibility by altering mammary gland development." The report goes on to say "These compounds are widely detected in human tissues and in environments, such as home, where women spend time."

The paper points out that PAH's (car exhaust) and PCB's were as likely to cause harm as the factors that have received vastly more attention, such as age at first full-term pregnancy and inactivity. No media outlets reported the Cancer study except the LATimes, which later backed off making any sort of conclusions about pollutants.

The author, Ms. Spencer asks, "why is it so hard to get the most influential media to pay attention to the possibility that, in addition to better-understood risks, unnatural substances entering women's bodies might also be a factor?". Apparently, reporters act as though chemicals are innocent until proven guilty. This places an enormous burden on health advocates to prove that there might be harm.

As with many environmental concerns (GMO's for example) there might be quite complicated causality for harm, and the press should be willing to engage in the conversation. I'm afraid that it is, as always, a case of following the money. Brody, from Silent Spring, says that Magazines, TV, and newspapers all depend on advertising from companies that "produce the compounds targeted in our studies." Schardt, a former Newsweek editor puts a finer point on it saying that "Scientists are always attacked by industries with a stake" in the science. They have the deep pockets and will "pull out all the stops to discredit the source." Understandably journalists tend to shy away from these stories.

The self censorship and hedging of data, or ignoring data does a tremendous disservice to the public. If they could simply publish the facts, as we know them today, and let the public decide whether they are willing to take the risk with certain exposures or not. These issues can be quite complex, but to frame the data in a reassuring way to assuage the concerns of advertisers and corporate interests certainly does not help the public.