An interlocking legislative complex is proposed for the control of carcinogenic and other adverse impacts of established run-away petrochemical and radionuclear technologies, with particular reference to winning the losing war against cancer. These proposals are also applicable to the poorly recognized, potentially adverse public health and environmental hazards of emerging technologies, particularly genetically engineered food production. The proposals embody fundamental democratic rights—the right to know and balanced and transparent decision making—the “Precautionary Principle,” reduction in the use of toxics, incentives for the development of safe industrial technologies, and criminal sanctions for suppression or manipulation of information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EpsteinS. S.The Politics of Cancer Revisited. East Ridge Press, Fremont Center, New York, 1998. Web site: www.preventcancer.com
2.
EpsteinS. S.SteinmanD., and Le VertS.The Breast Cancer Prevention Program, Ed. 2. Macmillan, New York, 1998.
3.
EpsteinS. S., American Cancer Society: The world's wealthiest “non-profit” institution. Int. J. Health Serv. 29: 565–578, 1999.
4.
Cancer Prevention Coalition.American Cancer Society Indicted for Losing the Winnable War Against Cancer. PR Newswire press release, October 25, 1999.
5.
WalkerM., Sir Richard Doll: A questionable pillar of the cancer establishment. The Ecologist28: 82–92, 1998.
6.
EpsteinS. S.U.K. Cancer Charities Indicted for Losing the Winnable War Against Cancer. PR Newswire press release and press conference, Imperial College, London, September 13, 1999.
7.
ThorpeB.European Initiative as a New Chemical Policy: Phasing Out Carcinogens. Working Paper. Clean Action Production, Montreal, 1999.
8.
EpsteinS. S.The Politics of Cancer. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 1978.
9.
FaginD., Lavelle, M., and the Center for Public Integrity. Toxic Deception: How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends the Law and Endangers Your Health. Carol Publishing Group, Secaucus, N.J., 1996.
10.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.Toxic Use Reduction Act (TURA), 1989.
11.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 1997 Toxics Use Reduction Information Release, March 23, 1999.
12.
Something else that can be reduced: Costs. International Herald Tribune, June 7, 1999, p. 11.
Selling not products, but services.International Herald Tribune, June 7, 1999, p. 11.
15.
Friendlier technology, or the E2 P2 factor.International Herald Tribune, June 7, 1999, p. 2.
16.
SteinmanD., and EpsteinS. S.The Safe Shoppers Bible: A Consumer's Guide to Non-Toxic Household Products, Cosmetics and Food. Macmillan, New York, 1995.
17.
HawkenP.LovinsA., and LovinsL. H.Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Little, Brown, Boston, 1999.
18.
MooreT. J.Prescription for Disaster. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1998.
19.
GageK., and EpsteinS. S., The Federal Advisory Committee System: An assessment. Environmental Law Reporter7(2): 50001–50012, 1977.
20.
VerallJ. V.The Manipulation of Codex Alimentarius. Report to SanterR. J.Mr., President of the European Commission, March 31, 1999.
21.
CastlemanB. J., and LemenR. A., The manipulation of international scientific organizations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health.4: 53–55, 1998.
22.
EpsteinS. S.Testimony on White Collar Crime (H.R. 4973) before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary. Washington, D. C., December 13, 1979.
23.
EpsteinS. S., Corporate crime: Why we cannot trust industry-derived safety studies. Int. J. Health Serv. 20: 443–458, 1990.
24.
EpsteinS. S., Implants pose poorly recognized risks of breast cancer. Int. J. Occup. Med. J.4: 315–342, 1995.
25.
Mangini vs. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Case No. 939359, Superior Courts of the State of California, November 2, 1998.
26.
Fugh-BermanA., and EpsteinS., Tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: A precautionary review. Rev. Endocrine-Related Cancer43: 43–53, 1993.
