In 1982 Joe Cocker recorded the famous song “Everything gives you cancer”. In 2012 when asked about it he said
…Most of what you hear in the media about what's good and bad for you is bulls--t. I'm absolutely convinced of that. It’s…..so on is so unscientific. It's actually ridiculous. And it's not doing anyone any good. It's just making everyone more paranoid and stressed.”
The growth of social media, non-expert information on health undermines confidence of scientific advice. That influences the political and policy making environment. That demands that the best available evidence on cancer risks are communicated clearly, respectfully and consistently.
Another key factor we cannot ignore is vested and conflicting interests. Businesses profiting from the sale of products that are known or suspected to contribute to cancer and other harms (apply many strategies to pursue their prime objective, financial success. Sometimes that means removing or modifying products because of a suspicion of health harm, even if unproven. Others ruthlessly seek to attack and undermine science and public policy to pursue business objectives, eg Tobacco, asbestos.
Key factors like levels of toxicity, likelihood of exposure, quantum of dose exposure and their influence on risk are central in the discussion. We need to develop better means of addressing the challenge of cancer risk in “the grey zone”.
We must communicate the likely levels of risk for exposures in that zone. And understand what can genuinely be done to reduce harmful exposures, taking into account epidemiology, viability of strategies to remove or minimise exposure and ensure community understanding is at the highest achievable level.
The perception, and the political context, while frustrating for some – is an essential piece of the puzzle of reducing preventable death and disease due to exposures experienced in the workplace.