| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA
3Correspondence: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA. E-mail: huff1{at}niehs.nih.gov
In a series of papers, Ames and colleagues allege that the scientific and public health communities have perpetuated a series of ‘misconceptions’ that resulted in inaccurate identification of chemicals that pose potential human cancer risks, and misguided cancer prevention strategies and regulatory policies. They conclude that exposures to industrial and synthetic chemicals represent negligible cancer risks and that animal studies have little or no scientific value for assessing human risks. Their conclusions are based on flawed and untested assumptions. For instance, they claim that synthetic residues on food can be ignored because 99.99% of pesticides humans eat are natural, chemicals in plants are pesticides, and their potential to cause cancer equals that of synthetic pesticides. Similarly, Ames does not offer any convincing scientific evidence to justify discrediting bioassays for identifying human carcinogens. Ironically, their arguments center on a ranking procedure that relies on the same experimental data and extrapolation methods they criticize as being unreliable for evaluating cancer risks. We address their inconsistencies and flaws, and present scientific facts and our perspectives surrounding Ames’ nine alleged misconceptions. Our conclusions agree with the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the National Toxicology Program, and other respected scientific organizations: in the absence of human data, animal studies are the most definitive for assessing human cancer risks. Animal data should not be ignored, and precautions should be taken to lessen human exposures. Dismissing animal carcinogenicity findings would lead to human cancer cases as the only means of demonstrating carcinogenicity of environmental agents. This is unacceptable public health policy.—Tomatis, L., Melnick, R. L., Haseman, J., Barrett, J. C., Huff, J. Alleged ‘misconceptions’ distort perceptions of environmental cancer risks.
Key Words: environmental carcinogens • assessment of risks • cancer prevention • carcinogenesis bioassay
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. W. Arthur, A. Sanchez-Perez, and D. I. Cook Scoring of predicted GRK2 phosphorylation sites in Nedd4-2 Bioinformatics, September 15, 2006; 22(18): 2192 - 2195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. TOMATIS Identification of carcinogenic agents and primary prevention of cancer. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., September 1, 2006; 1076: 1 - 14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. L. Melnick A Daubert Motion: A Legal Strategy to Exclude Essential Scientific Evidence in Toxic Tort Litigation Am J Public Health, July 1, 2005; 95(S1): S30 - S34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R.R. Maronpot, G. Flake, and A. J. Huff Relevance of Animal Carcinogenesis Findings to Human Cancer Predictions and Prevention Toxicol Pathol, January 1, 2004; 32(1_suppl): 40 - 48. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. HUFF Chemicals Studied and Evaluated in Long-Term Carcinogenesis Bioassays by Both the Ramazzini Foundation and the National Toxicology Program: In Tribute to Cesare Maltoni and David Rall Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., December 1, 2002; 982(1): 208 - 230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Huff Carcinogenicity of Bisphenol A Revisited Toxicol. Sci., December 1, 2002; 70(2): 281 - 283. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. A. Boorman, J. K. Haseman, M. D. Waters, J. F. Hardisty, and R. C. Sills Quality Review Procedures Necessary for Rodent Pathology Databases and Toxicogenomic Studies: The National Toxicology Program Experience Toxicol Pathol, January 1, 2002; 30(1): 88 - 92. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
