There was an overall increase of 55 per cent in all cancers in the US from 1950 to 1995 of which lung cancer, attributed primarily to smoking, accounts for about 12 per cent of cancer cases.

Over the same period, non-smoking cancers like prostrate cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma have increased by 200 per cent, testicular cancer by 110 per cent (for men between 28 and 35 years, as much as 300 per cent), brain and nervous system cancer by 80 per cent and childhood cancer by 20 per cent, says Prof. Samuel Epstein, author of The Politics of Cancer Revisited, who feels that a winnable war against cancer, is beinglost.

Increased longevity in no way implies that the disease of cancer has been brought under control, nor can cancer be attributed mainly to a faulty personal lifestyle, role of high fat diets, genetic factors or smoking, says Epstein.

``Billions of dollars have been squandered on searches for `cures', but virtually nothing has been done to prevent exposure to carcinogenic chemicals in the environment, despite overwhelming evidence that contamination of our air, water, food, consumer goods, cosmetics and household products is a major cause of cancer,'' he states.

Epstein is forthright in talking about the ``cancer establishment'', which is controlled by the very industries that generate such contaminants.Warning of a cancer epidemic, Dr Ronald Finn, honorary consultant physician at the Royal Liverpool University hospital recently cited a survey in the UK, which showed that cancer is the commonest cause of death (40 per cent) in the country. By 2000, the US, too, is slated to follow suit. What isblindingly clear is that social control mechanisms have been outstripped by the growth of industrial technologies, particularly the petrochemical ones.

And cancer cases have been growing in developing countries, which are rushing to adopt chemical technology. Every utilities like hair dyes, mobile phones, power lines, are said to be carcinogenic. As Joanna Ibarra of Community Hygiene Concern explains, ``The pharmaceutical grade of pesticides is immuno-suppressant at low doses-i.e. they harm the body's natural defences against cancer.'' For example, malathion, carbaryl, phenothrin and permethrin are formulated into medicines used to treat head lice. An association between the family use of carbaryl in the home, garden and pet care and childhood cancer was found in 1993. Permethrin was classified as a potential human carcinogen in 1991 by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) in the US. Then there is lindane, which is said to cause breast cancer.

In the UK, the deliberate application of cancer-inducingpesticides to children, pregnant and nursing mothers are quite common. Prescription drugs are a major class one recognises as carcinogenic. A recent report by the US Environmental Working Group has claimed that each day, one million children under five consume unsafe levels of organophosphate insecticide residues in the US. Organophosphates have been linked with cancer and damage to the genes, in particular cancer of the lymphatic system. Synthetic pyrethroid sprays commonly used in homes and other enclosed environments against household pests, have also been linked with cancer.

Perhaps one of the biggest concerns is that of lindane, a highly toxic pesticide, which ahs been banned in many countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Israel and the Ukraine, but not in the UK. The International Agency for Research on Cancer and the EPA have concluded that lindane is a possible human carcinogen and where lindane is used or where humans are exposed to it, the incidence of breast cancer is higher. Lindane belongs to thesame family as DDT and it is said to cause headaches, dizziness and cancer. Although its use in the treatment of seeds has been banned, it is still used in the textile and timber industry, among others.

Occupational carcinogens are responsible for 25 per cent of all cancer mortalities in the UK. ``Farm workers, fruit pickers, food packers and supermarket employees, cabin crew involved in the spraying of pesticides, construction workers and textile labourers engaged in the treatment of timber and textiles, and local authority staff involved in pest control, make and use pesticides,'' explains Barry Lethwood of Transport and General Workers Union (T&G), quoting the example of Edgar Trehearne, a farm worker.

Trehearne used backpack sprays comprising a major component of Agent Orange, which often leaked and on one occasion, splashed on his neck. Within a few weeks, he had developed a growth which was diagnosed as cancer or soft tissue sarcoma. He died within a year. Produced by the Monsanto Corporation, AgentOrange was used as a defoliant by the US forces in the Vietnam war.

Most such corporations are economically driven with scant regard for human health and safety. They use workers as guinea pigs. Many chemicals have been classified by the WHO and the EPA as proven or suspected carcinogens. They mimic the natural hormone oestrogen and such endocrine disrupters are known to be carcinogenic. Thus, there is epidemiological evidence of increases in breast, testicular and prostrate cancers, which occur in hormone sensitive organs. There is also an increase in congenital abnormalities and a worrying decrease in the sperm count.

Products like cosmetics have 20 listed chemicals on the label, but they mean little to the common man and woman whose glance seldom strays towards the properties of such chemicals.

A decision upon licensing of chemicals is based almost entirely upon data produced by the manufacturers. There is no independent testing of the products, and once the product is licensed, there is an extremereluctance to review it seriously.

For instance, primiphos-methyl is said by the manufacturers to have a half-life of between three and 30 days, yet some manufacturers state it is effective as an insecticide for up to 15 months. These policies reflect institutional mindsets fixated on damage control rather than prevention.

Only 1.5 per cent of the total cancer research budget is targeted at the possible carcinogenic effects of chemicals in the environment. And given that pharmaceutical companies fund most medical research, why would they want to put money into looking at the role of dietary fat or indeed any preventive area, which could threaten the market of cancer drugs?In such a situation, we need different models of regulation and ways of making the producers of potentially harmful chemicals bear their share of the responsibility. Expecting governments to shoulder the burden only provides a shield for the producers, so much so that the licensing and control systems end up protecting not the consumers,but the producers.

At the recent European Ministers Conference held in London, 200 MPs pledged themselves to the prevention of cancer. They have embarked on an ambitious task, for 70,000 new chemicals have been synthesised in the 20th century and it will be the task of the 21st century to identify which of these are potentially dangerous so as to devise safer alternatives.

-- WFS