There is little evidence of a clear-cut relationship between breast cancer and environmental factors. This is according to a new report released by the Institute of Medicine, which is an independent group that’s a component of the National Academy of Sciences, responsible for advising the government and public.
Due to their exhaustive, 364 page report, the Institute prepared to make a few strong recommendations about environmental wellness and breast cancer prevention, most of which are already well-known and not proven to be hugely beneficial. This included advising women, where possible, to avoid unnecessary medical radiation, combination hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for menopause, alcohol, and weight gain.
The report was two years in the making and came from a committee of 15 outside experts, primarily from universities, and nine institute staff members. A breast cancer advocacy group, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, was the sole sponsor, requesting the report in the first place and spending one million dollars on its preparation. As the report is based largely on a review of existing research, its limited advice highlights the fact that there is a lack of solid scientific information in many areas of concern to the public.
There is a range of reasons why the problem is difficult to evaluate. You cannot ethically give someone suspected toxic to see if cancer develops, and information regarding dosage and exposure duration in individuals with past exposures may be vague. The results of animal studies may not be applicable to humans, and each person has their own genetic makeup, and can be exposed to a unique mixture of chemicals that may interact and affect their wellbeing in different and complex ways.
According to Irva Hertz-Picciotto, chairwoman of the expert committee and chief of environmental and occupational health at the University of California, Davis, ‘In the last 20 years, the National Institutes of Health and private foundations have put a lot of money into trying to identify what are the risk factors for breast cancer. It’s a bit disappointing that so little has been learned with the amounts of money that have gone into it.’ She commented that the committee was unable to ‘identify a bunch of environmental factors’ that might contribute to the disease.
Comments are closed.