Paracelsus to parascience: the environmental cancer distraction

Mutat Res. 2000 Jan 17;447(1):3-13. doi: 10.1016/s0027-5107(99)00194-3.

Abstract

Entering a new millennium seems a good time to challenge some old ideas, which in our view are implausible, have little supportive evidence, and might best be left behind. In this essay, we summarize a decade of work, raising four issues that involve toxicology, nutrition, public health, and government regulatory policy. (a) Paracelsus or parascience: the dose (trace) makes the poison. Half of all chemicals, whether natural or synthetic, are positive in high-dose rodent cancer tests. These results are unlikely to be relevant at the low doses of human exposure. (b) Even Rachel Carson was made of chemicals: natural vs. synthetic chemicals. Human exposure to naturally occurring rodent carcinogens is ubiquitous, and dwarfs the general public's exposure to synthetic rodent carcinogens. (c) Errors of omission: micronutrient inadequacy is genotoxic. The major causes of cancer (other than smoking) do not involve exogenous carcinogenic chemicals: dietary imbalances, hormonal factors, infection and inflammation, and genetic factors. Insufficiency of many micronutrients, which appears to mimic radiation, is a preventable source of DNA damage. (d) Damage by distraction: regulating low hypothetical risks. Putting huge amounts of money into minuscule hypothetical risks damages public health by diverting resources and distracting the public from major risks.

Publication types

  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Carcinogens, Environmental / toxicity
  • DNA Damage
  • Humans
  • Neoplasms / etiology*
  • Neoplasms / prevention & control
  • Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
  • Pesticides / toxicity
  • Public Health
  • Risk Factors

Substances

  • Carcinogens, Environmental
  • Pesticides