Makayla, cancer and colonialism

The tragic death of Makayla Sault—who died of leukemia after stopping chemotherapy—has triggered a backlash. “First Nations parents can now doom their sick children,” warned the Toronto Star. “Dying, because her parents were likely weak and uninformed, possibly misled, and our institutions could not find the backbone to protect this child,” wrote an infuriated doctor in the Ottawa Citizen. “Just how aboriginal rights should matter to any of this in the first place is something that beggars belief,” exclaimed the National Post. What beggers belief is the way in which these remarks ignore and reinforce colonialism.

Cancer, colonialism and capitalism

Makayla died from cancer, an invasive and destructive disease that colonizes the body and extracts its life force without its consent. This is what Canada has done to Indigenous peoples. As Indigenous academic Leanne Betasamosake Simpson explained, “Colonialism and capitalism are based on extracting and assimilating. My land is seen as a resource. My relatives in the plant and animal worlds are seen as resources. My culture and knowledge is a resource. My body is a resource and my children are a resource because they are the potential to grow, maintain, and uphold the extraction-assimilation system. The act of extraction removes all of the relationships that give whatever is being extracted meaning. Extracting is taking. Actually, extracting is stealing—it is taking without consent, without thought, care or even knowledge of the impacts that extraction has on the other living things in that environment. That’s always been a part of colonialism and conquest. Colonialism has always extracted the indigenous—extraction of indigenous knowledge, indigenous women, indigenous peoples.”

As a consequence of living in a system that treats people and the planet as mere resources, regardless of the toxic consequences, we're in the midst of a cancer epidemic—with half of all people in Canada developing some form of cancer. This has been normalized (blamed on our genes or the natural aging process) or blamed on individual "lifestyle choices" like smoking. But much of the cancer epidemic is rooted in the economy that contaminates the earth, water, air and food on which we depend. The pollution of Indigenous territory from the tar sands has led to high cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan, and the carcinogenic economy also affects those on whose labour it depends. 

As the Unifor Prevent Cancer Campaign explains, "Workers in certain carcinogenic-laden industries are contracting cancer at rates well beyond those experienced by the general population. At last 60 different occupations have been identified as posing an increased cancer risk. Studies show that the auto industry is producing laryngeal, stomach and colorectal cancers along with its cars. The steel industry is producing lung cancer along with its metal products. Miners experience respiratory cancers at rates many times higher than the expected levels in the general population. Electrical workers are suffering increased rates of brain cancer and leukaemia. Aluminum smelter workers are contracting bladder cancer. Dry cleaners have a elevated rates of digestif tract cancers. Firefighters contract brain and blood-related cancers at many times the expected levels. Women in the plastics and rubber industry are at greater risk of uterine and possibly breast cancer. The list goes on...Why do we hear so much about the dangers of tobacco but so little about the other 23 lung carcinogens? The reason is that tobacco is claimed to be a 'lifestyle' choice, so industry and the medical profession can blame the victims. The other 23 known causes of lung cancer are related to industry. They can be prevented and removed from our workplaces and our environment."

Colonial medicine

Colonization has included medical arguments and institutions. As the physician and philosopher Frantz Fanon wrote in A Dying Colonialism, “The fact is that the colonization, having been built on military conquest and the police system, sought a justification for its existence and the legitimization of its persistence in its works. Reduced, in the name of truth and reason, to saying ‘yes’ to certain innovations of the occupier, the colonized perceived that he thus became the prisoner of the entire system, and that the French medical service in Algeria could not be separated from French colonialism in Algeria.” The same is true in Canada. As Laurie Meijer Drees writes in Healing Stories: Stories from Canada’s Indian Hospitals, “As early as 1914, sections of the Indian Act allowed the government to apprehend patients by force if they did not seek medical treatment.” This forced treatment denied traditional medicine and included segregated facilities (“Indian hospitals”) that medically experimented on Indigenous people. The same happened in residential schools that stole Indigenous children from their communities—a practice that continues today through other means.

The denial of traditional knowledge included imposing a highly restricted view of healthcare (“Western medicine”) that reduces health to an isolated individual and pharmaceutical intervention—ignoring social, economic, environmental and cultural factors that determine health and the accessibility and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals. There’s nothing inherently Western about this biological reductionism. In his 1845 work Conditions of the Working Class in England, Friedrich Engels outlined a social model of health, and called diseases “the necessary consequence of the present neglect and oppression of the poorer classes.” But a biological reductionist view came to dominate capitalist healthcare—undermining the potential of its own treatments, by ignoring broader factors that shape people’s susceptibility to illness and their potential to access and benefit from medication. Profit-driven pharmaceutical corporations dominate healthcare, creating skepticism and reinforcing a market in equally profit-driven “alternative” medicine like the Florida clinic that treated Makayla.

Right to refuse, and right to access

Given the legacy of colonialism it’s not surprising there might be suspicion towards hospital treatment—especially when accompanied by threats of apprehension, in order to enforce such a difficult regimen as chemotherapy (despite its effectiveness in treating leukemia). We might disagree with the choice to stop chemotherapy, though Makayla did brave it for nearly three months before stopping it (contrary to media headlines that she simply refused it). But as the courts found, “(Makayla’s mother’s) decision to pursue traditional medicine for her daughter is her aboriginal right. Further, such a right cannot be qualified as a right only if it is proven to work by employing the western medical paradigm. To do so would be to leave open the opportunity to perpetually erode aboriginal rights.”

Despite media claims, “Indigenous rights vs Western medicine” is a false dichotomy. While Makayla died after stopping treatment, there are far more Indigenous people who die from being denied access to treatment and prevention—and this sparks far less fury from the mainstream media. “Racism can doom sick patients,” could have been the headline after Brian Sinclair died in a Winnipeg ER, denied treatment for 34 hours. “Our institutions could not find the backbone to protect this community,” could be written about the Ontario government’s refusal to support the community of Grassy Narrows against mercury poisoning. “Cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan beggar belief,” should be included in every discussion of the tar sands.

If we’re concerned about private clinics profiting from dubious claims and treatments, then the response should not be to blame Indigenous families who chose that option. Instead we need to strengthen public healthcare, including creating a national pharmacare program and stopping Harper’s $36 billion cut to health care (and the federal government's denial of chemotherapy to refugees).

Decolonizing medicine

Thanks to Indigenous sovereignty and solidarity movements there are growing attempts to decolonize medicine. As Brantford physician Chris Keefer wrote last spring in the Two Row Times, “By behaving in a manner consistent with a colonial master’s mentality, McMaster Children’s Hospital and members of the medical team have very unfortunately created a lack of trust and a break in the therapeutic bond between the medical team and the family. Threats of apprehension of Onkwehon:we children, the dis-respect of elders in family meetings, and denigrating remarks about traditional medicines have no place in a respectful two row relationship. Such actions, comments and behaviours extinguish the opportunity to build trust with the family, trust that is necessary to encourage the family to pursue a very difficult two year treatment plan marked by severe and even life threatening side effects. As a medical doctor trained within Canadian society with no experience of traditional Onkwehon:we medicines, I am not sure that the family is making the right choice by refusing chemotherapy. However it is not my right as a member of Canadian society to impose my will upon Onkwehon:we people.”

The Canadian Medical Association Journal has taken the same progressive approach. In their article “Caring for Aboriginal patients requires trust and respect, not courtrooms,” Lisa Richardson of the UofT Office of Indigenous Medical Education and magazine deputy editor Matthew Stanbrook write: “Media coverage has fueled a narrative of polarized paradigms that is unhelpful and misleading, implying false choices. Medical science poses no inherent conflict with Aboriginal ways of thinking. Medical science is not specific to a single culture, but is shared by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike. Most Aboriginal people seek care from health professionals—but nearly half also use traditional medicines. Aboriginal healing traditions are deeply valued ancestral practices that emphasize plant-based medicines, culture and ceremony, multiple dimensions of health (physical, mental, emotional and spiritual), and relationships between healer, patient, community and environment. These beliefs create expectations that Aboriginal patients bring to their health encounters; these must be respected. Doing so is not political correctness—it is patient-centered care…For the state to remove a child from her parents and enforce medical treatment would pose serious, possibly lifelong, repercussions for any family, but such action holds a unique horror for Aboriginal people given the legacy of residential schools. To make medical treatment acceptable to our Aboriginal patients, the health care system must earn their trust by delivering respect.”

At the same time we can learn from Indigenous teachings to broaden our conception of health and healthcare. As the National Aboriginal Health Organization explains, health indicators include not only individual lifestyle behaviours like smoking and physical activity, but also health knowledge, personal resources, health services (both access to physicians and Aboriginal representation in health professions), physical environment, and social and economic environment. Rather than blaming a family for their tragedy, we should be collectively working to improve these determinants of health, so that we can treat and prevent cancer and replace the cancerous system driving it with one that respects people and the planet. As the Six Nations of the Grand River and the Mississaugas of the New Credit explained “We sincerely hope that this decision is part of an emerging era of healing and reconciliation between Canada and our nations. We hope that our children and generations to come will no longer experience the mistrust, misunderstanding, and mistreatment by the Canadian government that have been our daily reality for over 200 years.”

Resisting the Cancervative agenda

The Conservative government is denying chemotherapy to refugees and imposing carcinogenic tar sands on indigenous communities, as part of an oil-driven economy that puts profits above people and the planet. But there are growing movements demanding healthcare and a green future for all. 

Healthcare for All
Last spring, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced drastic cuts to refugee health. As his parliamentary secretary Rick Dykstra later admitted, "The current reform of the (Interim Federal Health Program) was part of the economic action plan, budget 2012, and was under budget secrecy; therefore, no consultation took place with provincial and territorial governments or medical and health care associations prior to the policy decision being made." 

When health providers found out about the cuts they responded with occupations and protests, and its clear their warnings and actions were justified: the federal Conservatives have denied chemotherapy to a refugee in Saskatoon who has stomach cancer. As Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall said, joining a growing number of provinces denouncing the cuts and covering the costs: "It’s unbelievable that some of the decisions that have been taken federally are having this impact on people who are clearly the most vulnerable, refugees who are obviously fleeing something quite terrible—that’s why they’re refugees."

The Conservatives claim that previously funded care was excessive and a drain on Medicare. Not only does the denial of chemotherapy show the cruel absurdity of this claim, but it comes at the same time as Prime Minister Harper has refused to meet with premiers to discuss the $36 billion he's cutting from the Canada Health Transfer (360 times the amount "saved" by cuts to refugee health). Refugee health cuts were designed to deprive care from refugees, and to scapegoat them for broader cuts to Medicare. Protests reversed some of the cuts to the Interim Federal Health Program, but further action is required to restore refugee healthcare and push back against the broader cuts. 

No Carcinogenic Tar Sands
While Conservative cuts are denying chemotherapy to refugees, tar sands are imposing cancer on indigenous communities. People in Fort Chipewyan, the community downstream from the tar sands, and their health providers have for years raised the alarm about high rates of rare cancer, which the Alberta Cancer Board finally confirmed in 2009. As George Poitras of the Mikisew Cree First Nation in Fort Chipewyan said back in 2009, "It's about time that we're getting these results confirming what we've been saying all along." The Conservatives have tried to ignore front-line communities and cut funding from scientists, but there is a growing indigenous-led movement against tar sands.

In 2009 a delegation challenged Harper at Copenhagen. “Fossil fuel extraction from the tar sands are killing our people with cancer, killing our culture by destroying our traditional lands, and killing our planet with CO2,” said Eriel Tchekwie Deranger, member of the Athbasca Chipewyan First Nation and Tar Sands Campaigner for the Rainforest Action Network. Last year there was a mass protest on Parliament, and this year has seen further momentum against carcinogenic tar sands and their pipelines--including the Yinka Dene Alliance Freedom Train from the west coast to Toronto, the Defend Our Coast sit-in in Victoria, the PowerShift conference in Ottawa, the No Line 9 conference in Toronto, and the Unist'ot'en eviction of pipelines (which has called for solidarity actions next week).

Good Green Jobs Now
The "economic action plan" that brought cuts to refugee chemotherapy, and the tar sands bringing cancer to indigenous communities, claim to provide the economic benefit of jobs. But the fossil fuel industry is one of the least efficient job creators, and the jobs it creates undermine the health of workers and the long-term health of the planet on which we all depend. Instead, we need good green jobs, as Jim Britton, Regional Vice President of CEP (the union representing tar sands workers) said in the lead up to the Victoria sit-in: 

"We will be coming to Victoria not just to oppose Harper's vision of an economy based on exporting raw bitumen but to propose a very different economic vision for our country. We want a transition from dependence on fossil fuels that is fair to the workers in the sector, as well as a national energy strategy that includes good green jobs and long term energy security to Canadians."

According to a recent study there are much higher rates of breast cancer in women working in the auto plastics industry, part of the broader oil economy tied to the tar sands. But the movement against tar sands is starting to unite the labour movement with indigenous and environmental movements. As Susan Spratt from the Canadian Auto Workers said in the lead up to the Defend Our Coast rally: 

"The ongoing risks that these tar sands pipelines and tankers pose aren't worth any price. Tens of thousands of unionized and other jobs depend on healthy river and ocean ecosystems. On October 22 we will be standing in solidarity with thousands of working people in BC and our First Nations sisters and brothers." 

Faced with an oil-driven Cancervative agenda that cuts healthcare and spreads carcinogenic tar sands, growing movements of resistance and solidarity are raising the possibility of a future of indigenous sovereignty, healthcare for all and good green jobs.

Victory for breast cancer awareness as BPA declared toxic

It’s fitting that this October--Breast Cancer Awareness Month--saw Canada add Bisphenol A (BPA) to its Toxic Substances List. This victory is thanks to a long campaign by Environmental Defence, which works to expose the daily carcinogens in our lives. For too long we’ve been told to “be aware” of breast cancer, while the carcinogens we eat, drink, breathe, and lather on ourselves have been ignored. This victory is an important first step in  raising awareness about breast cancer and how to prevent it. Below I will quote extensively from the most accessible, comprehensive and yet ignored text on breast cancer prevention I’ve come across: State of the evidence: the connection between breast cancer and the environment.

BPA OFFICIALLY TOXIC
     BPA is the chemical building block of hard plastic used to make baby bottles, water bottles, and food storage containers. We are literally bathing in BPA: more than 4 billion kilograms are produced globally, and it’s been found in the bodies of more than 90 percent of people in North America. But it’s an unstable compound that can leach into food and then into people, where it acts on estrogen receptors and increases the risk of breast cancer (in addition to heart disease, diabetes, miscarriages, neurological problems, and prostate cancer). Adding BPA to Canada’s Toxic Substances List is just the first step in ending its role in breast cancer. According to Dr. Rick Smith, Executive Director of Environmental Defence, and co-author of Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects Our Health, “We look forward to now working with the federal government to take the next important step: banning BPA from all metal food and beverage cans since these can leach it into our food.”

BREAST CANCER EPIDEMIC: BIKINI MEDICINE OR THE GLOBALIZATION OF CHEMICALS?
     The designation of BPA as toxic is a challenge to the mainstream understanding of breast cancer. Health Canada exemplifies the mainstream medical model that reduces breast cancer to women and their internal hormones: while mentioning smoking, radiation, and hormone replacement therapy as risks, most risk factors they list are internal to women: female gender, older age, early menstruation, late menopause (all factors over which we have no control), having a baby late or never, never breastfeeding, and being overweight. Some have called this “bikini medicine”, reducing women’s health to those parts covered by the bikini: breasts and ovaries. This list also reads like the typical advice that  magazines bombard women with on a daily basis: be young, be thin, have children and don’t wait too long. Ironically, many of those cosmetic products designed to give a youthful appearance actually increase breast cancer risk.
     This reductionist biomedical model cannot explain the epidemic of breast cancer (or cancer in general) in which we’re living: “between 1973 and 1998, breast cancer incidence rates in the United States increased by more than 40 percent”. Conventional risk factors can’t explain this sudden rise, nor its geographical distribution:

“Globally, more than 1.15 million women were diagnosed with breast cancer in 2002. The highest rates are found in the industrialized nations of north America and western Europe…In northern Africa, as in many regions that are either developing or in transition, breast cancer rates are escalating sharply”. 

     We are witnessing the globalization of cancer, which has more to do with external  hormones than internal ones. This has been proved by the recent decline in breast cancer:

“the most recent incidence data indicate a significant decline over the past several years in both breast cancer incidence and mortality in the United States. The most widely discussed explanation for this decrease is the sharp decline in use of post-menopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) over the past decade and especially following the announcement in 2002 of the association of HRT use with increased risk for breast cancer.”

But obviously HRT is not the only chemical to which women are exposed:

“the increasing incidence of breast cancer [and cancer in general] over these decades paralleled the proliferation of synthetic chemicals…1000 or more new chemicals are synthesized each year. Complete toxicological screening data are available for just 7 percent of these chemicals, and more than 90 percent of these chemicals have never been tested for their effects of human health….many of these chemicals persist in the environment, accumulate in body fat, and may remain in breast tissue for decades.”

 Here are some compounds linked to breast cancer:
1) Estrogens/progestins: HRT, personal care products
2) Radiation: light at night (night-shift workers), ionizing radiation (medical radiology)
3) Xenoestrogens and other Endocrine-disrupting Compounds (EDCs): tobacco, dioxins (industrial processes), alkylphenols (detergents, hair products), parabens (cosmetic, deodorants, preservatives), BPA, phthalates(plastics, cosmetics, cleaning materials), suncreens, pesticides, food additives, hormones used in food production
4) Non-EDC Industrial chemicals: ethylene oxide (cosmetics), organic solvents, aromatic amines (tobacco, combustion), benzene (exhaust, refineries), butadiene (petroleum refineries)

     Besides the fact that tobacco is but one of multiple carcinogens, three themes emerge from this list: toxic consumption, occupational hazards, and home cleaning products.

TOXIC CONSUMPTION
     The cosmetic industry bombards women with constant messages that they need to slather all sorts of chemicals on their bodies, and it turns out many of these are linked to breast cancer. How ironic then that Estee Lauder has tried to silence this message by shining pink lights on various landmarks as part of breast cancer awareness month (see my previous post on this issue). There is also a racialized aspect to carcinogenic cosmetics, as magazines and adds perpetuate the message that black is not beautiful (like L'Oreal's ads that white-washed Beyonce):

“Products marketed to women of colour often contain some of the most problematic chemicals. Skin lighteners, hair relaxers, hair dyes and skin moisturizers developed for women of colour often contain carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting compounds”

    The food industry is also producing breast cancer by their profit-driven quest to produce the largest animals in the most cramped conditions in the shortest time span, along with homogenous crops that require artificial protection from pests:

“Pesticides sprayed on crops, antibiotics used on poultry, and hormones injected into cattle, sheep and hogs expose consumers involuntarily to contaminants that become part of our bodies. Research suggests that some of these exposures may increase breast cancer risk”. 

     While cancer, and illnesses in general, are often reduced to “lifestyle choices”, there is often very little choice involved as most people are unaware of what they are consuming:

“despite opposition from physicians, scientists and consumer advocacy groups, the FDA in 1993 approved Monsanto’s genetically engineered hormone product rBGH for injection in daily cows to increase milk production. This hormone quickly found its way (without labeling) into the US milk supply [where is raises IGF-1, which is linked to breast cancer] and from there into ice cream, buttermilk, cheese, yogurt and other dairy products.”

     But in another recent victory, a US federal court ruled Ohio's ban on labeling of dairy products as hormone-free was unconstitutional.

WOMEN AND WORK
     Women are not just breasts and ovaries, are not just consumers, they are also workers. Ignoring this fact has prevented scientific studies from discovering risk factors for breast cancer:

“The relationship between toxic exposures in the workplace and later diagnosis of breast cancer has been difficult to establish in large part because, until recently, occupational studies have not included women in sufficient numbers to evaluate relationships between environments and female-specific cancers like breast cancer.”

     Now research is emerging that links breast cancer with work done predominantly by women. I know from my work that most nurses and radiology technicians who work night shifts are women. Add to this list cosmetic industry workers, dental hygienists, and many agricultural workers. There is also a racialized aspect to these exposures:

“Many farmworkers are undocumented immigrants who enjoy fewer legal protections and less access to health care that the general population, limiting their ability to protect themselves from pesticide exposure or to seek medical care in response to chemically induced health problems.”

     In addition, many dangerous industries are located in close proximity to racialized communities, like Canada’s tar sands and its carcinogenic impact on FirstNations. Finally, women’s labour in the home has been ignored not only economically but also medically:

“although women make up nearly half the workforce in the United States, relatively few studies have been conducted to identify occupational exposures associated with breast cancer…Many women actually have two places of work: their homes and the paid workplace. Each site has its unique set of exposures to chemicals and non-ionizing radiation. However, traditional occupational exposure studies focus on exposures only in the paid workplace.”

     To truly raise breast cancer awareness we need to ditch bikini medicine and acknowledge the reality of women’s lives: pressured by sexist and racist media to douse chemicals on their bodies, consuming food laced with hormones and pesticides, working in toxic environments in the workplace and in the home, living in communities surrounded by dangerous oil industries. Only by exposing and purging all these chemicals from our lives will we have a chance to conquer breast cancer. Declaring BPA toxic marks an important first step.

Cancer awareness: stop the tar sands, good green jobs for all

October is breast cancer awareness month and last night Laureen Harper, the Prime Minister’s wife, helped cover the Parliament Buildings in pink light, as part of the Estée Lauder Companies’ Breast Cancer Awareness Global Illuminations Initiative. As she said, "Our message is simple - be vigilant and get regular mammograms. Connect, communicate and conquer."
     The welcome the government has provided to this initiative contrasts sharply with the reception they’ve provided to other groups raising awareness about Canada’s most notorious carcinogen: the tar sands. This difference shines a light on the problematic way in which cancer prevention is approached.

UNDERMINING COMMUNICATATION
     Communication is certainly important to raise awareness about cancer. But over the past year the tar sands corporations and the governments that support them have ignored or interfered with individuals and groups communicating about the carcinogenic tar sands.
     A tar sands worker was fired for exposing his working conditions on his blog! As he wrote,  “I do not think that purchasing the rights to develop oil leases over expanses of land greater than most European countries gives these corporations the right to drop a blanket of total secrecy over their operations, treatment of people, and conditions.”
     Recently local aboriginal leaders, fishermen, researchers and health professionals called attention to fish downstream of the tar sands which have tumours, while filmmaker James Cameron and NASA top scientists James Hansen have added their voice to the opposition. As Hansen stated, “it’s not that the government’s don’t know [about the consequences], but the governments are not doing anything.”
     Worse than this, provincial and federal governments are actively intervening to silence those drawing attention to tar sands cancer. Dr. John O’Connor, who for years has spoken out about despite threats, against the high rates of rare cancers in Fort Chipewyan near the tar sands, is raising alarm over a proposed provincial bylaw that would muzzle physicians who raise health issues in the media.
     Federally, after Greenpeace scaled Parliament to drop banners reading “climate inaction costs lives”, the government arrested activists and now arms its Parliament Hill officers with submachine guns. At the Copenhagen climate treaty, an indigenous-led delegation shamed Harper on the world stage for his commitment to carcinogenic tar sands. As Eriel Tchekwie Deranger, member of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and Tar Sands Campaigner for the Rainforest Action Network said:

“Fossil fuel extraction from the tar sands are killing our people with cancer, killing our culture by destroying our traditional lands, and killing our planet with CO2. It seems that Canada is more committed to fossil fuels than human rights or real action for the climate. Mr. Harper – We welcome you to Copenhagen because we want real action on climate, and that means shutting down the tar sands and a moratorium on new fossil fuel development.”

     Instead of shutting down the tar sands, Harper shut down Parliament—to escape popular pressure over climate change, the torture of Afghans, and the recession. But last night our tar sands government participated in a corporate-sponsored cancer awareness initiative, by a cosmetic corporation whose products may be linked to cancer. How can governments and corporations who play a role in promoting cancer feel so confident to bask in the light of cancer awareness, cynically using people’s genuine concerns to distract from their own actions? Biomedical reductionism is partly to blame.

MEDICAL DISCONNECT
     Surely the best way to conquer cancer is to understand the connections is has with modifiable aspects of our lives. But the dominance of the biomedical model decontextualizes people and their illnesses from their social and natural environments, and reduces disease to microscopic processes and individual “lifestyle choices”, for which medical intervention and “personal choices” are the only solutions. How have we done with this approach? Every year we know more about cancer and have more technology to detect and treat yet, and yet every year more people die of cancer. In fact, we are living in a pandemic of cancer: in the 1930s one in ten people developed cancer, in the 1970s it was up to one in five, and now more than one in three. While cancer was once uncommon, we now all have close family and friends with cancer.
     The failure of the biomedical approach to explain and prevent cancer is often attributed to success, with the increase in cancer attributed to better screening or living longer, as if we’re naturally pre-programmed to develop cancer. But the vast majority of cancers are not genetic (only 5% of breast cancers), many cannot be screened for (like pancreatic or lung cancer) and this level of increase far outpaces the impact of aging. I see people with cancer on a daily basis and many are less than 50—including a 30 year old man I diagnosed a few months ago with colon cancer, and a 40 year woman I just saw who died of vulvar cancer.
     This is not to say medicine does not play an important role. In fact, while there is a tremendous amount of time and resources that go into finding “the cure” for cancer, many medical advances already exist. Many cancers in the Global South are due to chronic infections for which prevention and treatment are already known but are denied due to poverty and pharmaceutical patents. Cervical cancer and much liver cancer could be prevented with access to pap smears and vaccines. Some forms of bladder cancer are caused by water-born infections that could be prevented through access to safe drinking water. The widespread availability of antiretrovirals could diminish the number of people who develop HIV-associated cancers.
     When it comes to prevention, the dominant medical model is highly selective in what carcinogens it chooses to blame. The continual rise in lung cancer is blamed solely on the dissemination of cigarettes, but cigarettes are not the only chemical to enter existence over the last century. According to the Canadian Auto Workers Prevent Cancer Campaign:

“The International Agency for the Research of Cancer has identified 24 substances that cause lung cancer in humans. Twenty-three were determined by the excess mortality of workers who were exposed to these substances. The 24th, of course, is tobacco. Why do we hear so much about the dangers of tobacco but so little about the other 23 lung carcinogens? The reason is that tobacco is claimed to be a “lifestyle” choice, so industry and the medical profession can blame the victims. The other 23 known causes of lung cancer are related to industry. They can be prevented and removed from our workplaces and our environment.”

     Since breast cancer is sensitive to estrogen, all the focus on “risk factors” are about an individual’s reproductive cycle—menstruation, conception, breastfeeding, menopause. So it came as a surprise in 2006 when a Canadian study found that women working on farms and automotive industry are far more likely to develop breast cancer. It turns out that many chemicals, like pesticides, act like estrogens in the body and increase the risk of breast cancer. When the medical model reduces women to reproductive organs, it misses the threats they face as workers in toxic environments. As the CAW guide summarizes, this is not restricted to farm or auto workers:

“Workers in certain carcinogen-laden industries are contracting cancer at rates well beyond those experienced by the general population. At least 60 different occupations have been identified as posing as increased cancer risk. Studies show that the auto industry is producing laryngeal, stomach, and colorectal cancers along with its cars. The steel industry is producing lung cancer along with its metal products. Miners experience respiratory cancers many times higher than expected. Electrical workers are suffering increased rates of brain cancer and leukemeia. Aluminum smelter workers are contracting bladder cancer. Dry cleaners have elevated rates of digestive tract cancers. Firefighters contract brain and blood-related cancers at many times the expected levels. Women in the plastics and rubber industry are at greater risk for uterine cancer and possibly breast cancer. The list goes on and on.”

CONQUER CANCER: SHUT DOWN THE TAR SANDS, GOOD GREEN JOBS FOR ALL
     By seeing cancer connected to our natural and social environments, our vigilance does not have to be reduced to screening for cancers, but can be expanded to widespread prevention—by providing access to the medical advances that treat infectious precursors to cancer, and by developing an economy based on safe and environmentally sustainable work.  So let’s expand the scope of the pink light, not only on Parliament but on the government’s toxic devotion to tar sands, and on our carcinogenic economy. Cancer prevention must include shutting down the tar sands, and expanding green jobs to save the planet and its people.