Although there are many voices claiming cancer is not an epidemic, unfortunately true statistics refute this typical claim:The reality is that over one million persons become cancer victims each year. War doesn’t take as many lives as cancer!
There appears to be considerable evidence that chemicals approved by our government protection agencies are a contributing cause in spite of their constant disclaimers that there is not enough scientific evidence for them to take action. They always deem it necessary to do a long term study. Rather than considering the mounds of evidence as enough cause to outlaw seemingly dangerous chemicals until they can be proven safe, these agencies maintain a reverse policy of sanctioning the use of suspect chemicals until proven unsafe!
Dr. Daniel Petrylak, an oncologist at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City in discussing the increase in testicular cancer and the lower sperm count in males says, “It is possible that whatever environmental factors are causing sperm counts to go down may be causing cancer to rise.”
Many resources repeat this type of comment suspecting environmental pollution as a cause of the cancer rise. Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, professor of occupational health at the University of Illinois and author of a number of books, has long campaigned against the careless overuse of chemicals that ultimately end up in the human environment. A survey by a cancer organization on Long Island, New York showed a larger number of breast cancer victims in areas with greater levels of chemical pollution.
Our government agencies insist upon keeping their heads in the sand, ignoring all the cancer-causing danger signs and there are many. If these watchdog agencies refuse to protect us, then we need to take our own action to effect a change, and we can do it if we act together! Only concerted action by those who care will achieve our much desired results.
One of the most affective organizations fighting chemical pollution is Food and Water, Inc. They are activists who make no compromises with industry or government at the expense of human lives. They don’t waste their effort pleading with legislators. They zero in on the violating industry by organizing boycotts or asking their membership to contact the CEO’s of companies to register their complaints. This technique has been very successful in many instances. One typical example has been the experience of Vindicator, the irradiation plant built in Florida, at great expense that has now changed its name. Food and Water
members warned that irradiated food was unacceptable to them and it can be assumed that it had an impact that forced the name change. Because of Food and Water’s constant vigilance and their membership’s responses to an organized grass roots action, they get results.
This system requires people-power. It can only be successful as a joint effort. Food and Water can organize the activity, but its success depends upon numbers. Numbers represent dollars to industry. I urge you to join Food and Water so that your voice added to others will have the impact needed to control the violations that our government is guilty of.
Today Food and Water is attacking two very specific areas: the recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) that is used to increase milk production and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) effort to repeal the Delaney Amendment, a law that controls the use of cancer-causing pesticides in food and water. EPA wants to allow pesticides with a “negligible risk” factor as acceptable. For those of us who have lost someone because of cancer or are presently suffering from cancer, Zero risk is the only acceptable yardstick. Not one death is tolerable!
The rBGH campaign has already produced a concession from Land o’ Lakes, a large milk processing company. Land o’ Lakes has agreed to supply a line of products without rBGH under the trade name Superior
Brand. It certainly should not be impossible to get compliance from the milk processors as they have nothing to gain from the use of rBGH. If dairy processors refuse to use the milk from injected cows, it seems logical to conclude that the dairy farmers will discontinue the use of rBGH. Your effort can make this happen! Put forth the effort by joining Food and Water.
Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Monsanto, the producer of rBGH, proclaim the safety of rBGH, Monsanto concedes that the substance has some complications. It causes mastitis in cows for which antibiotics are used and then found in the milk. This practice risks the development of new resistant strains of bacteria. Another complication is that rBGH can cause sterility. Can anyone claim unconditionally that this will not affect a generation nurtured from birth on milk from rBGH treated cows?
You can reach Food and Water by calling 800-EATSAFE or by writing to Food and Water, Inc., Depot Hill Road, RR1 Box 114, Marshfield, Vermont 05658-9702.