No abstract

A community coalition that successfully addresses asthma health disparities with a strong business case and program outcomes can be leveraged to persuade policy makers of the value of innovative financing strategies for asthma care.

Background: Debates over the importance of "lifestyle" versus "environment" contributions to cancer have been going on for over 40 years. While it is clear that cigarette smoking is the most significant cancer risk factor, the contributions of occupational and environmental carcinogens in air, water and food remain controversial. In practice, most cancer prevention messaging focuses on reducing cigarette smoking and changing other personal behaviors with little mention of environmental chemicals, despite widespread exposure to many known carcinogens. To inform decision-making on cancer prevention priorities, we evaluated the potential impact of smoking cessation on cancer rates. Methods: Using cancer incidence data from 612 counties in the SEER database, and county-level smoking prevalences, we investigated the impact of smoking cessation on incidence for 12 smoking-related cancer types, 2006-2016. A multilevel mixed-effects regression model quantified the association between county-level smoking prevalence and cancer incidence, adjusting for age, gender and variability over time and among counties. We simulated complete smoking cessation and estimated the effects on county-level cancer rates. Results: Regression models showed the expected strong association between smoking prevalence and cancer incidence. Simulating complete smoking cessation, the incidence of the 12 smoking-related cancer types fell by 39.8% (54.9% for airways cancers; 28.9% for non-airways cancers). And, while the actual rates of smoking-related cancers from 2006 to 2016 declined (annual percent change (APC) = − 0.8, 95% CI = − 1.0 to − 0.5%), under the scenario of smoking elimination, the trend in cancer incidence at these sites was not declining (APC = − 0.1, 95% CI = − 0.4 to + 0.1%). Not all counties were predicted to benefit equally from smoking elimination, and cancer rates would fall less than 10% in some counties. Conclusions: Smoking prevention has produced dramatic reductions in cancer in the US for 12 major types. However, we estimate that eliminating smoking completely would not affect about 60% of cancer cases of the 12 smoking-related types, leaving no improvement in the incidence trend from 2006 to 2016. We conclude that cancer prevention strategies should focus not only on lifestyle changes but also the likely contributions of the full range of risk factors, including environmental/occupational carcinogens.

No abstract

This article summarizes the evidence for environmental toxic exposures contributing to cancers in early life, focusing on the most common cancer sites in this age group. It provides examples of widespread avoidable exposures to human carcinogens through air, water, and food and then describes recent examples of successful initiatives to reduce exposure to chemicals linked to these cancer sites, through government policy, industry initiatives, and consumer activism. State government initiatives to reduce toxic chemical exposures have made important gains; the Toxics Use Reduction Act of Massachusetts is now 25 years old and has been a major success story. There are a growing number of corporate initiatives to eliminate toxics, especially carcinogens, from the products they manufacture and sell. Another important opportunity for cancer prevention is provided by online databases that list chemicals, their toxicity, and lower-toxicity alternatives; these can be used by businesses, health care institutions, consumers, and workers to reduce exposures to chemicals of concern. The article concludes by inviting pediatricians and public health professionals to include elimination of carcinogen exposures in their work to promote primary prevention of cancer in early life.

We reflect on four articles that examine the Supreme Court's Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc decision and efforts by private interests to derail public health and environmental regulations. The articles' authors make the case that the impact of Daubert and related decisions in court settings pale by comparison to the threat that Daubert-like thinking poses in the regulatory arena. A growing number of companies, however, have made substantial changes in practice and in culture by embracing a philosophy where health and environment are priorities. Mechanisms could be established to encourage firms to pledge to use science to meet public health and environmental goals, as well as channel the ingenuity of the private sector towards ecological, economical, and equitable systems of production.

The plausible threat to children from environmental exposures and uncertainty as to the magnitude and nature of potentially harmful effects provide a rationale for taking precautionary measures to prevent such exposures. The authors present principles for applying precaution to children's environmental health, and policy tools for implementing them. A stronger focus on primary prevention and a better understanding of the risks are needed.

The 2010 report of the President's Cancer Panel concluded that the burden of cancer from chemical exposures is substantial, while the programs for testing and regulation of carcinogens remain inadequate. New research on the role of early life exposures and the ability of chemicals to act via multiple biological pathways, including immunosuppression, inflammation, and endocrine disruption as well as mutagenesis, further supports the potential for chemicals and chemical mixtures to influence disease. Epidemiologic observations, such as higher leukemia incidence in children living near roadways and industrial sources of air pollution, and new in vitro technologies that decode carcinogenesis at the molecular level, illustrate the diverse evidence that primary prevention of some cancers may be achieved by reducing harmful chemical exposures. The path forward requires cross-disciplinary approaches, increased environmental research investment, system-wide collaboration to develop safer economic alternatives, and community engagement to support evidence-informed action. Engagement by cancer researchers to integrate environmental risk factors into prevention initiatives holds tremendous promise for reducing the rates of disease.See all articles in this CEBP Focus section, "Environmental Carcinogenesis: Pathways to Prevention."