How much evidence do we need?

Kamyar Enshayan

What to do about Iowa’s rising cancer crisis? “Funding cancer research” is often the response from elected leaders of our state and from most candidates running for public office. The assumption is that once we know, we will act on the findings of that research.  But what assurance is there that we will act on findings of said research? What do we know already from previous research that we have not acted on?

Decades of research in Iowa has revealed extensive pollution of our rivers and public drinking water supplies; research also has shown air pollution from large, confined hog and chicken facilities — all affecting health of Iowans. Decades of research have also shown that these harms are unnecessary and preventable. Legislators and local policy makers have not acted on those research findings, so why should we expect that “funding cancer research” will change anything?

What’s missing is action. Acting on what we already know. Let’s consider just a sampler of what we have known for decades:

• Two decades ago, the American Cancer Society identified 216 chemicals known to cause breast cancer in animals.  Of these, 73 were found in food, 35 were air pollutants and 29 were produced in large quantities in the U.S. How many and how much of these have been in circulation in Iowa? Which state agency tracks these and makes it highly visible to Iowans?

• We have known for three decades that large volumes of hormone disrupting chemicals have been in use in Iowa. Atrazine is a proven hormone-disrupting chemical, causes a variety of reproductive harms, has been linked to breast and ovarian cancers, banned in many nations, but continues to be in heavy use in Iowa, at least six million pounds annually. Do public officials concerned about rise of cancer in Iowa not know these facts? Do they not know that effective ecological alternatives atrazine and other pesticides exist and are practiced by innovative farmers? Why aren’t state health officials not acting on these robust findings?

• Two decades of research has revealed that compliant levels of nitrate (less than 10 milligram per liter) in our drinking water increase the risk of cancer and reproductive harm. A Large number of Iowans are drinking nitrate-contaminated water. Do public health officials of our state realize that nitrogen pollution is unnecessary and preventable if we act on what we already know from ecological agriculture research in Iowa? 

In other words, we know everything we need to know to significantly reduce and eliminate Iowa’s known environmental risk factors listed here. All are preventable. How much more evidence do we need? The expectation of “hard proof” of causation is a mirage. We cannot afford to wait until we know absolute causation. Because stakes are very high, we must act based on precaution.

As a state we have enough evidence to act to reduce incidence of cancer. “Funding cancer research” is a pie-in-the-sky wish and does not address the preventable harms Iowans are enduring right now. We need to fund action based on what we already know will reduce cancer risks in Iowa.

Kamyar Enshayan served on the Cedar Falls City Council (2003-2011) and can be reached at kenshayan@gmail.com.