Author: Peter Montague

Preventing environmental problems and preventing cancer have never been mainstream ideas. Traditionally, government agencies have created programs to manage environmental problems and to try to cure cancer. But as Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Peter Montague tells us, the philosophy of prevention is beginning to catch on:

Transcript

Preventing environmental problems and preventing cancer have never been mainstream ideas. Traditionally, government agencies have created programs to mmanage environmental problems and to try to cure cancer. But as Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Peter Montague tells us, the philosophy of prevention is beginning to catch on.

With all the fuss that’s being made about human genes these days, it is good to remember
that most cancer is not caused by our genes. In other words, most cancers are not inherited
from our parents. A recent medical study of 44,000 twins re-affirmed that most cancers are
caused by exposure to environmental factors. This is good news, because it means that most
cancers can be prevented, by preventing exposure to cancer-causing agents.

This cancer prevention philosophy is new. The U.S. has spent billions of dollars trying
to find a cure for cancer, but very little trying to prevent it. Now cancer prevention is
beginning to be taken seriously, and a leader in cancer prevention has focused its work
on the Great Lakes. I’m talking about a small government agency called the International
Joint Commission, or IJC, which focuses on water quality in the Great Lakes. For the past
decade, the IJC has been preaching the virtues of keeping cancer-causing chemicals out of the
Lakes. In fact, the IJC is now recommending that we keep all persistent toxic chemicals out of the Lakes. The IJC says we must eliminate persistent toxic chemicals because once we create them, there’s no safe way to manage them — they get loose and come back to bite us, or give us cancer.

In 1992 the IJC said we must “recognize that all persistent toxic substances are dangerous
to the environment, deleterious to the human condition, and can no longer be tolerated in the
ecosystem….”

In other words, instead of trying to decide how much pollution is safe to allow in our
water or on our cornflakes, the IJC says we should take a preventive approach — we should
eliminate toxic substances. And you know what? Preventing pollution can pay off in more ways than one: as we prevent cancer, there will be a lot of new jobs created as people develop non-toxic products to replace all the toxic chemicals we now use. No doubt about it, cancer prevention is a good policy — good for public health and good for the economy.

Many people think pollution is as inevitable as death and taxes. ButGreat Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Peter Montague tells us that anew philosophy of environmental protection has sprung up around theGreat Lakes:

Transcript

To me, one of the most important measures of human health is the rising rate of cancer
in young children. Young children aren’t exposed to the major causes of cancer — they don’t
smoke tobacco; they don’t breathe toxic chemicals on the job, and their lives aren’t subject
to great stress.

Children’s lives today aren’t much different from the lives of children 50 years ago —
and yet there’s a lot more cancer in children today than there was 50 years ago. What this means is that there’s something in the environment causing cancer in children — something in the air, the water, the soil, the food. This is a bad sign, and it’s happening in every industrialized country.

The good news is that a small government agency located on the Great Lakes is trying to do
something about the situation. It is called the International Joint Commission, or IJC. Fifteen years ago, scientists working for the IJC became convinced that Great Lakes pollution was making people sick, and the IJC began to develop a new philosophy of environmental protection. To me, this new philosophy is one of the most exciting developments of the 20th century.

The first principle is that persistent toxic chemicals should be eliminated from the
ecosystem. The IJC said the proper philosophy is “Zero discharge.” If a chemical is toxic and persistent, then the only acceptable amount to discharge into the environment is zero.

The second principle is called reverse onus, or “reversing the burden of proof.” As things
stand today, the burden of proof is on the public to show that industrial pollution is harmful. The IJC says the burden should be shifted onto industrial polluters: before they are allowed to dump anything into the Great Lakes– or anywhere else — they should have to show that they are not going to harm wildlife or humans.

And lastly, the IJC recommends a precautionary approach: if you have reason to believe that what you’re doing is harmful, you should stop doing it even before you’ve got scientific proof of harm.

Together these 3 principles add up to something entirely new. As you might imagine,
industrial polluters think the IJC was sent here by the devil, so the IJC needs all the help it can get from the public.

To get involved, check out their web site: www.ijc.org

Preventing environmental problems and preventing cancer have never been mainstream ideas. Traditionally, government agencies have created programs to manage environmental problems and to try to cure cancer. But as Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Peter Montague tells us, the philosophy of prevention is beginning to catch on:

Transcript

Preventing environmental problems and preventing cancer have never been mainstream
ideas. Traditionally, government agencies have created programs to manage environmental problems
and to try to cure cancer. But as Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Peter Montague
tells us, the philosophy of prevention is beginning to catch on.

With all the fuss that’s being made about human genes these days, it is good to remember
that most cancer is not caused by our genes. In other words, most cancers are not inherited
from our parents. A recent medical study of 44,000 twins re-affirmed that most cancers are
caused by exposure to environmental factors. This is good news, because it means that most
cancers can be prevented, by preventing exposure to cancer-causing agents.

This cancer prevention philosophy is new. The U.S. has spent billions of dollars trying
to find a cure for cancer, but very little trying to prevent it it. Now cancer prevention is
beginning to be taken seriously, and a leader in cancer prevention has focused its work
on the Great Lakes. I’m talking about a small government agency called the International
Joint Commission, or IJC, which focuses on water quality in the Great Lakes. For the past
decade, the IJC has been preaching the virtues of keeping cancer-causing chemicals out of the
Lakes. In fact, the IJC is now recommending that we keep all persistent toxic chemicals out of
the Lakes. The IJC says we must eliminate persistent toxic chemicals because once we create them,
there’s no safe way to manage them — they get loose and come back to bite us, or give us cancer.

In 1992 the IJC said we must “recognize that all persistent toxic substances are dangerous
to the environment, deleterious to the human condition, and can no longer be tolerated in the
ecosystem….”

In other words, instead of trying to decide how much pollution is safe to allow in our
water or on our cornflakes, the IJC says we should take a preventive approach — we should
eliminate toxic substances.

And you know what? Preventing pollution can pay off in more ways than one: as we prevent
cancer, there will be a lot of new jobs created as people develop non-toxic products to replace
all the toxic chemicals we now use. No doubt about it, cancer prevention is a good policy —
good for public health and good for the economy.

HOST TAG: Peter Montague is the editor of Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly, which is
available free on-line at www.rachel.org

Many people think pollution is as inevitable as death and taxes. ButGreat Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Peter Montague tells us that anew philosophy of environmental protection has sprung up around theGreat Lakes:

Transcript

Many people think pollution is as inevitable as death and taxes. But Great Lakes Radio
Consortium commentator Peter Montague (MON-ta-gew) tells us that a new philosophy of
environmental protection has sprung up around the Great Lakes.

To me, one of the most important measures of human health is the rising rate of cancer
in young children. Young children aren’t exposed to the major causes of cancer — they don’t
smoke tobacco; they don’t breathe toxic chemicals on the job, and their lives aren’t subject
to great stress.

Children’s lives today aren’t much different from the lives of children 50 years ago —
and yet there’s a lot more cancer in children today than there was 50 years ago. What this means
is that there’s something in the environment causing cancer in children — something in the air,
the water, the soil, the food. This is a bad sign, and it’s happening in every industrialized
country.

The good news is that a small government agency located on the Great Lakes is trying to do
something about the situation. It is called the International Joint Commission, or IJC. Fifteen
years ago, scientists working for the IJC became convinced that Great Lakes pollution was making
people sick, and the IJC began to develop a new philosophy of environmental protection.
To me, this new philosophy is one of the most exciting developments of the 20th century.

The first principle is that persistent toxic chemicals should be eliminated from the
ecosystem. The IJC said the proper philosophy is “Zero discharge.” If a chemical is toxic and
persistent, then the only acceptable amount to discharge into the environment is zero.

The second principle is called reverse onus, or “reversing the burden of proof.” As things
stand today, the burden of proof is on the public to show that industrial pollution is harmful.
The IJC says the burden should be shifted onto industrial polluters: before they are allowed to
dump anything into the Great Lakes– or anywhere else — they should have to show that they are
not going to harm wildlife or humans.

And lastly, the IJC recommends a precautionary approach: if you have reason to believe
that what you’re doing is harmful, you should stop doing it even before you’ve got scientific
proof of harm.

Together these 3 principles add up to something entirely new. As you might imagine,
industrial polluters think the IJC was sent here by the devil, so the IJC needs all the help it
can get from the public.

To get involved, check out their web site: www.ijc.org

HOST TAG: Peter Montague is the editor of Rachel’s Environment & Health News,
which is available free on-line at www.rachel.org