Cancer Panel Wants Us To Be Cave Dwellers

If we eliminate all manufactured products in our life, we’ll eliminate human cancer, except for a few genetically induced cancers. Two esteemed doctors are positive of this.

“Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety,” according to the recently released 2008-09 annual report of the President’s Cancer Panel. This year’s report was titled “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk, What We Can Do Now.” All manufactured products, in one way or another, can contribute to causing cancer, say the panel of two doctors.

The full report raises the question of how stupid can two doctors be? The 240-page report was compiled by Suzanne Reuben for Dr. LaSalle Leffall, Jr., professor of surgery at Howard University College of Medicine, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, University of Texas professor emerita and a doctor with the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Both doctors were appointed by President George W. Bush; the third seat on the panel is vacant.

Exposure to Everything Is Harmful

The doctors condemn exposure to basically everything that humans in developed countries come into contact with daily and classify them by hazard source—industrial and manufacturing, medicine and medical procedures, military contaminants, the natural environment and agricultural production. Of course, the report condemns conventional livestock production and growing of crops. The doctors blame pesticide, fertilizer and livestock pharmaceutical manufacturers.

There is no question that these are activist doctors ready to push all of us back to living in caves. There is nothing good about modern technology because we cannot prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that any chemicals are safe for use. But the doctors find problems with naturally occurring chemicals that we would find in those caves, too.

The doctors contend that chemicals cannot be tested, as currently is done, by determining the level of exposure that causes an effect in animals and exposing different animals to substantially higher levels of exposure than humans would ever encounter in their normal life. These doctors don’t have any answers as to how to study a chemical’s effect at extremely low doses over years, but that is what they want. Eliminating outside influences over years is impossible. Additionally, they want chemical interactions studied; but interaction of all the possible combinations of the 80,000 registered chemicals is astronomical and completely impossible. They also condemn inert non-registered chemicals as potentially harmful because nothing has been proven about them.

Of course, there is no way that personnel using chemicals or involved in the manufacturing of chemicals are properly protecting themselves or being protected by their employer, according to the doctors’ report.

To earn sympathy and acceptance of the report, the doctors contend that the world’s children are the most susceptible and must be protected.

Conventional Agriculture Completely Wrong

Scaring people concerning their food sources is a big section of the report. The “Exposure to Contaminants from Agricultural Sources” begins with an ominous statement. “The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals, some of which also are used in residential and commercial landscaping.” At what level is that exposure—one molecule per trillion molecules?

The report notes that 1,400 pesticides have been registered by the Environmental Protection Agency for agricultural and non-agricultural uses. “An average of 18 new pesticides are introduced every year,” it is noted. And none of them are adequately tested because “human harm must be proven before action is taken to reduce or eliminate exposure,” the report says.

In actuality, the report is more an excuse to ask for billions of dollars for doctors, institutes, cancer centers, etc. to develop new testing procedures and research programs for decades to come—and not really searching for cancer cures but mainly procedures to test chemicals.

The two authors quote other activist doctors and a prime example is a quote against all conventional agriculture’s use of pesticides made by Sandra Steingraber, Ithaca College. “They [pesticides] are now in amniotic fluid. They’re in our blood. They’re in our urine. They’re in our exhaled breath. They are in mothers’ milk….What is the burden of cancer that we can attribute to this use of poisons in agricultural systems?...We won’t really know the answer until we do the other experiment, which is to take the poisons out of our food chain, embrace a different kind of agriculture, and see what happens.”

The doctors suggest an immediate, illogical and radical step of having the entire U.S. population eat “food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers.”

These doctors are more than a little out of touch with reality; they are insane.

Source: Richard Keller, AgProfessional Editor

1. USDA approves newly formulated PULMO-GUARD vaccine for cattle
2. Another droughty summer forecast for West Texas
3. Do opponents of crop insurance oppose farm programs in general?
4. Ag markets generally mixed again Tuesday morning
5. UK first in EU to get Merck's new Schmallenberg vaccine
6. Will this summer be a repeat of 2012?

1. Michigan hay buyers should plan purchases early
2. New animal identification rules aid disease traceability
3. Corn planting pace turns from record slow to record fast
4. U.S. cattle placements rise in April as feed costs subside
5. Survey reveals most Americans in favor of COOL
6. Ag markets were mixed to start the new week

1. Meat and climate change: How significant is the impact?
2. BeefTalk: How do we get the next generation to raise beef?
3. 2014 Farm Bill: Are we near an agreement?
4. Farm bill and immigration reform action needed
5. Boxed beef hits record highs, cattle weak to lower
6. Survey reveals most Americans in favor of COOL