New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer

I think that the issue of testing 'chemicals' for cancer risks is important. I am concerned about several things ; why just cancer? There are numerous other important diseases and disease related events , eg ,cardiovascular that in developed countries is the larger threat. why not reproductive and developemental? The article refers to BPA...a compund with long known sex steroid effects. If we are going to evaluate the 'safety' of chemicals in our environment ( that includes foods) why not do it comprehensively in terms of the the risks to us and future generations? we also need to establish testing parameters. In Europe , there is concern (eg ethical) as to the number of animals that would be required for this type of testing(10 million). There is also concern as to what assays to run , their validity and reproducibility. why don't we consider marshalling resources from around the world rather than have the Europeans do it and the USA do it separately? IARC ( which though the name contains cancer has looked at many other disease risks) , a UN organization that the USA plays a significant role in ,might be a way forward that allows for proper focus , management and assesment as well as the frugal use of test animals where appropriate.Finally , the assesment of individual chemicals , though the general approach , does not reflect the reality of human exposures, which are complex (temporally , doseage) , multichemical. If we are going to do this in a serious manner, we need to go beyond the way we currently evaluate chemicals and the organizations which are tasked with making regulatory decisions...

This set of concerns has another set in response: MONEY!

Who gets it, who gives it, who makes it, who loses it, where it is spent and when it is spent. All are issues of political power.