U.S. Senate, Environmental POLLUTION, PESTICIDES, AND CANCER: Testimony, March 6, 1991 Risk Factors for Cancer MISCONCEPTIONS Bruce N. Ames and Lois S. Gold Dr. Bruce N. Ames is a Professor of Biochanisq md Molecular Biology md Director of the National Institute of Enviro~~~~ntd Health Sciences Ccnlcr. Univmiry of California. Bdeley. CA 94720. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and was on their Commission on Life Sciences. He was a manbe? of the National Clncer Advisory Board of the Ntiond Cmcm IrrJtilu~ (1976.82). His many aw&s include: dxe Gcrrrrl Motors Cmccr R-ch Fo&on prire (1983). the Tyler Prize for environmaul &,icvemcnt (1985x the Gold Medal Awmi of the An&can Jnstirulc of Cbemisls (1991). d,c Glenn Foundation Award of the Gnontologicll Society of America (1992). tbe Lnvclw Institutes Award for Excellence in Fnvironmmti Health Rewuch (1995). the Ho,& Found&x Rire for Ecotoxicobgy (1996) 4 the J,,xn F’riz (1997). His 380 publications have resulted in his being tie 23rd most-cited scientist (in al1 fields) (1973.84). BNAmes@UCLinL4,Bcrkcley.~u (510)642-5165 Dr. Lois Swirsky Gold is Dirw~~ of the Carcinogenic Potency Roj-xr at the Nationa.! Imtimtc of Envimnmmul HeaM Sciences Center, University of California. Berkclcy. CA 94720 md a Senior Scientist Lt tke Berkeley National Laboratory. Berkeley, CA 94720. She has published 80 papers on analyses of animal Ctests and implications for cancer pcvmtion. interspecies extrapolation and regulatory policy. The cUCi”O~&C Potexy Databae (CPDB). published ~6 L CRC -k. analyses resulu of 5ooO chronic. ,0”8-term cmcer tests on 1300 cbemicrls. Dr. Gold h= served on the Panel of Expert Reviewers for the National Toxicology Rogram the Boards of the Hward Center for Risk Analysis md the ANlnpolir Center. pnd wss a memberof rhe Hward Risk Mvlngemmt Group. Loi@~trncy.Bakclcy.educy.Berkeley.edu (510)486-7080 -. Summary 1. The major causes of cancer are: a) Smoking: About a third of U.S. CPIICW (90% of lung ~UCW); The quarter of the b) Dietary imbalances, e.g., lack of dietary fruits & vegetables: population eating the least fruits & vegetables bas double the cancer rate for most types of cancer compared to the quarter eating the most; c) Chronic infections: mostly in developing countries; d) Hormonal factors influenced by life style. Cancer mortality 2. There is no epidemic of cancer, except for lung cancer due to smoking. rates have declined 15% since 1950 (excluding lung cancer and adjusted for the increased lifespan of the population). 3. Regulatory policy focused on traces of synthetic chemicals is based on misconceptions about animal cancer tests. Recent research contradicts these ideas: Half of all chemicals tested in standard high dose a) Rodent carcinogens are not rare. animal cancer tests, wbetber occurring naturally or produced synthetically, are “carcinogens”; b) There sre high-dose effects in these rodent cancer tests that are not relevant to Lowdo= human exposures and which can explain the bigb proportion of carcinogens; c) Though 99.9% of the chemicals humans ingest are natural, the focus of regulatory policy is on synthetic chemicals. l Over 1000 chemicals have been described in coffee: 27 have been tested and 19 are rodent carcinogens. l plants we eat contain thousands of natural pesticides, which protect plants from insects and other predators: 64 have been tested and 35 are-rodent e&inogenk. 4. There is no convinciog evidence that synthetic chemical pollutants are important for human cancer. Regulations that try to eliminate minuscule levels of synthetic chemicals are The U.S. spends enormously expensive: EPA estimates its regulations cost $140 billion/year. 100 times more to prevent one hypothetical, highly uncertain, death from a synthetic chemical Attempting to reduce tiny hypothetical than it spends to save a life by medical intervention. risks also has costs, e.g., if reducing synthetic pesticides makes fruits and vegetables more expensive, thereby decreasing consumption, then cancer will be increased, particularly for the pCl0r. 5. Improved health will come from knowledge due to biomedical research, and from lifestyle changes by individuals. Little money is spent on biomedical research or on educating the public about lifestyle hazards, compared to the costs of regulations. Myths And Facts About Synthetic Chemicals and Human Canczr Various misconceptions about the relationship between environmental pollution and human disease, particularly cancer, drive regulatory policy. We highlight nine such misconceptions and briefly present the scientific evidence that undermines each. M&conception II: Cancer rates are soaring. Cancer death rates overall in the U.S. (atIer adjusting for age and excluding lung cancer due to smoking) have declined 15% since 1950 (1.2). The types of cancer deaths that have been decreased since 1950 are primarily stomach, cervical, uterine, and rectal. The types that have increased are primarily lung cancer (90% is due to smoking, as are 35 W of all cancer deaths in the U.S.), melanoma (probably due to sunburns), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. (Cancer incidence rates are also of interest, although, they should not be taken in isolation, because trends in the recorded incidence rates are biased by improvements in registration and diagnosis (2,311. Cancer is one of-the degenerative diseases of old age, increasing exponentially with age in both rodents and humans. External factors, however, can markedly increase cancer rates (e.g., Life cigarette smoking in humans) or decrease them (e.g., caloric restriction in rodents). expectancy has continued to rise since 1950. Thus the increases in cancer deaths are due to the delayed effect of increases in smoking and to increasing life expectancy (2,3X . . Misconception #Zz Envirhmental synthetic chemicals an? an important cause of human cancer. Neither epidemiology nor toxicology supports the idea that synthetic industrial chemicals are important for human cancer. Epidemiological studies have identified the factors that are likely to have a major effect on reducing rates of cancer: reduction of smoking, improving diet (e.g., increased consumption of fruits and vegetables), and control of infections (4). Although some epidemiologic studies find an association between cancer and low levels of industrial pollutants, the associations are usually weak, the results are usually conflicting, and the studies do not correct for potentially large confounding factors like diet. Moreover, the exposure to synthetic pollutants are tiny and rarely seem plausible as a causal factor when compared to the background of natural chemicals that are rodent carcinogens (5). Even assuming that the EPA’s worst-case risk estimates for synthetic pollutants are true risks, the proportion of cancer that EPA could prevent by regulation would be tiny (6). Occupational exposure to carcinogens can cause cancer, though how much has been a controversial issue: a few percent seems a reasonable estimate (4). The main conttibutor was asbestos in smokers. Exposures to substances in the workplace can be high in comparison with other chemical exposures in food, air, or water. Past occupational exposures have sometimes been high and therefore comparatively little quantitative extrapolation may be required for risk assessment from high-dose rodent tests to high-dose occupational exposures. Since occupational cancer is concentrated among small groups exposed at high levels, there is an opportunity to control or eliminate risks once they are identified. We (4) estimate that diet accounts for about one-third of cancer risk in agreement with the earlier estimate of Doll and Pete(2). Other factors are lifestyle influencing hormones, avoidance of intense sun exposure, increased physical activity, and reduced consumption of alcohol. Since cancer is due, in part, to normal aging, to the extent that the major external risk factors for cancer are diminished (smoking, unbalanced diet, chronic infection and hormonal factors) cancer will occur at a later age, and the proportion of cancer caused by normal metabolic processes will increase. Aging and its degenerative diseases appear to be due in good part to the accumulation of &dative damage to DNA and other macromolecules (7). By-products of normal metabolism -superoxide, hydrogen peroxide, and hydroxyl radical -- are the same &dative mutagens produced by radiation. Oxidative lesions in DNA accumulate with age, so that by the time a rat is old it has about a million oxidative DNA lesions per cell (7). Mutations also accumulate with age. DNA is oxidized in normal metabolism because antioxidant defenses, though numerous, are not perfect. Antioxidant defenses against oxidative damage include vitamins C and E and caratenoids, most of which come from dietary fruits and vegetables. Smoking contributes to about 35% of U.S. cancer, about one-quarter of heart disease, and about 400,ooO premature deaths per year in the United States (8). Tobacco is a known cause of cancer of the lung, bladder, mouth, pharynx, pancreas, stomach, larynx, esophagus and possibly colon. Tobacco causes even more deaths by diseases other than cancer. Smoke contains a wide variety $ Smoking is also a severe oridative stress and causes mutagens and rodent carcinogens. inflammation in the lung. The oxidants in cigarette smoke--mainly nitrogen oxides--deplete the body’s antioxidants. ~-Thus, smokers must ingest two to three times more Vita-min C than nonsmokers to achieve the wme level in blood, but they rarely do. Inadequate concentration of Vitamin C in plasma is more common among single males, the poor, and smokers (7). Men with inadequate diets or who smoke may damage both their somatic DNA and the DNA of their sperm. When the level of dietary Vitamin C is insufficient to keep seminal fluid Vitamin C at an adequate level, the &dative lesions in sperm DNA are increased 250% (9-11). Paternal smoking, therefore, may plausibly increase the risk of birth defects and appears to increase childhood cancer in offspring (9,10,12). Chronic inflammation from chronic infection results in release of axidative mutagens from phagocytic cells and is a major contributor to cancer (4.13). White cells and other phagocytic cells of then immune system combat bacteria, parasites, and virus-infected cells by destroying them with potent, mutagenic oxidizing agents. The oxidants protect humans from immediate death from infection, but they &o-cause &dative damage to DNA mutation, and chronic cell killing with compensatory cell division (14,15) and thus contribute to the carcinogenic process. Antioxidants appear to inhibit some of the pathology of chronic inflammation. We estimate that chronic infections contribute to about one-third of the world’s cancer, mostly in developing countries. Endogenous reproductive hormones play a large role in cancer, including breast, prostate, ovary and endometrium (X,17), contributing to as much as 20% of all cancer. Many lifestyle factors such as lack of exercise, obesity and reproductive history influence hormone levels and therefore risk. Genetic factors play a significant role in cancer and interact with lifestyle and other risk factors. Biomedical research is uncovering important genetic variation in humans. Misamception t3: Reducing pesticide residues is an effective way to prevent diet-related cancer. On the contrary, fruits and vegetables are of major importance for reducing cancer: if they become more expensive by reducing use of synthetic pesticides, cancer is likely to increase. People with low incomes eat fewer fruits and vegetables and spend a higher percentage of their income on food. Dietary Fruits and Vegetables and Cancer Prevention. Consumption of adequate fruits and vegetables is associated with a lowered risk of degenerative diseases including cancer, Over 200 studies in the cardiovascular disease, cataracts, and brain dysfunction (7). epidemiological literature have been reviewed that show, with great consistency, an association between lack of adequate consumption of fruits and vegetables and cancer incidence (18-20) (Table 1). The quarter of the population with the lowest dietary intake of fruits and vegetables compared to the quarter with the highest intake has roughly twice the cancer rate for most types of cancer flung, larynx, oral cavity, esophagus, stomach, colon and rectum, bladder, pancreas, cervix, and ovary). Only 22% of Americans met the intake recommended by the NC1 and the National Research Council (21-23): 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per day. When the public is told about hundreds of minor hypothetical risks, they lose perspective on what is important: half the public does not know that fruits and vegetables protect against cancer (24). Micronutrients in fruits and vegetables are nnticohwgens. Antioxidants in fruits and vegetables may account for some of their beneficial effect as discussed in Misconception Y2. However, the effects of dietary antioxidants are difficult to diwntangle by epidemiological &dies from other important vitamins and ingredients in fruits and vegetables (19,20,22.25). Folate deficiency, one of the most common vitamin deficiencies, causes extensive chromosome breaks in human genes (26). Approximately 10% of the US population (27) is deficient at the level causing chromosome breaks. In two small studies of low income (mainly AfricanAmerican) elderly (26) and adolescents (29) nearly half were folate deficient to this level. Th,e mechanism is deficient methylation of uracil to thymine, and subsequent incorporation of urad into human DNA (4 million/cell) (26). During repair of urecil in DNA. transient nicks *re formed; two opposing nicks causes a chromosome break. Both high DNA uracil levels and chromosome breaks in humans are reversed by folate administration (26). Chromosome breaks could contribute to the increased risk of cancer and cognitive defects associated with folate deficiency in humans (26). Folate deficiency also damages human sperm (30), cansos neural tube defects in the fetus, and 10% of U.S. heart disease (26). 3 Other micronutrients are likely to play a significant role in the prevention and repair of DNA damage, and thus are important to the maintenance of long term health. Deficiency of vitamin B12 causes a functional folate deficiency, accumulation of homocysteine (a risk factor for -‘~ heart disease) (31), and misincorporation of uracil into DNA (32). Strict vegetarians are at increased risk of developing a Vitamin B12 deficiency (31). Niacin contributes to the repair of DNA strand breaks by maintaining nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide levels for the poly ADP-ribose protective response to DNA damage (33). As a result, dietary insuiliciencies of niacin (15% of some populations are deficient (34)). folate. and antioxidants may act synergistically to adversely affect DNA synthesis and repair. Diets deficient in fruits and vegetables are commonly low in folate, antioxidants, (e.g., Vitamin C) and many other micronutrients, and result in significant amounts of DNA damage and higher cancer rates (4,X$35). Optimizing micronutrient intake can have a major impact on health. Increasing research in this area and efforts to improve micronutrient intake and balanced diet should be a high priority for public policy. Mlsconcep&n& Human~tocarcinogensandotherpotential -arepearty all to synthetic chemicals. On the contrary, 99.9% of the chemicals humans ingest are natural. The amounts of synthetic pesticide residues in plant foods are insignificant compared to the amount of natural pesticides produced by plants themselves (36,37). Of all dietary pesticides that humans eat, 99.99% are natural: they are chemicals produced by plants to defend themselves against fungi, insects, and other animal predators (36,37). Each plant produces a different array of such chemicals On average Americans ingest roughly 5,000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products. Americans eat about 1,500 mg of natural pesticides per person per day, which is about 10,000 times more than they consume of synthetic pesticide residues. Even though only a small proportion of natural pesticides has been tested for carcinogenicity, half of those tested (35/64) are rodent carcinogens, and naturally occurring pesticides that are rodent carcinogens are ubiquitous in fruits, vegetables, herbs, and spices (38) (Table 2). Cooking foods produces about 2,000 mg per person per day of burnt material that contains many rodent carcinogens and many mutagens. By contrast, the residues of 200 synthetic chemicals measured by FDA, including the synthetic pesticides thought to be of greatest importance, average only about 0.09 mg per person per day (36,38). The known natural rodent carcinogens in a single cup of coffee are about equal in weight to an entire year’s worth of carcinogenic synthetic pesticide residues, even though only 3% of the natural chemicals in roasted coffee have been tested for carcinogenicity (5) (Table 3). This does not mean that coffee is dangerous, but rather that assumptions about high dose animal cancer tests for assessing human risk at low doses need reexamination. No diet can be free of natural chemicals that are rodent carcinogens (38). Misconception #5: Cancer risks to humane can be assessed by standard high-danimal cancer tests. Approximately half of all chemicals -- whether natural or synthetic - that have been tested in standard animal cancer tests are rodent carcinogens (39.40) (Table 4). What are the explanations for the high positivity rate? In standard cancer tests rodents are given chronic, neartoxic doses, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Evidence is accumulating that it may be cell division caused by the high dose itself, rather than the chemical per se, that is increasing the cancer rate. High doses can cause chronic wounding of tissues, cell death, and consequent chronic cell division of neighboring cells, which is a risk factor for cancer (39). Each time a cell divides it increases the probability that a mutation will occur, thereby increasing the risk for cancer. At the low levels to which humans are usually exposed, such increased cell division does not occur. Therefore, the very low levels of chemicals to which humans are exposed through water pollution or synthetic pesticide residues are likely to pose no or minimal cancer risks. It seems likely that a high proportion of all chemicals, whether synthetic or natural. might be “carcinogens” if run through the standard rodent bioassay at the MTD, but this will be primarily due to the effects of high doses for the non-mutagens, and a synergistic effect of cell division at high doses with DNA damage far the mutagens (41-43). Without additional data on mechanism of carcinogenesis for each chemical, the interpretation of B positive result in a rodent bioassay is highly uncertain. The carcinogenic effects may be limited to the high does tested. The recent report 4 i ‘. of the National Research Council, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment (44) supports these ideas. The EPA’s draft document Working Paper for Considering Draft Revisions to the U.S. EPA ..~ Guidelines for Cancer Risk Assessment (44) is a step toward improvement in the use of animal cancer test results. In regulatory policy, the “virtually safe dose” (VSD), corresponding to a maximum, hypothetical cancer risk of one in a million, is estimated from bioassay results using a linear model. To +e extent that carcinogenicity in rodent bioassaya is due to the effecta of high doses for the non-mutagens, and a synergistic effect of cell division at high doses with DNA damage for the mutagens, then this model ie inappropriate. Moreover, as currently calculated, the VSD can be known without ever conducting a bioassay: for 96% of the NCILNTP rodent carcinogens, the VSD is within a factor of 10 of the ratio MTD1740,000 (45). This is about as precise as the estimate obtained from conducting near-replicate cancer tests of the same chemical (45). Misconception t6: Spd.heti~ chemicals pose gmater carcinogenic hezardsthannatd chemicals. Gaining a broad perspective about the vast number of chemicals to which humans are exposed can be helpful when setting research and regulatory priorities (5,3’7,46,47). Rodent hioassays provide little information about mechanisms of carcinogenesis and low-dose risk. The assumption that synthetic chemicals are hazardous has led to a bias in testing, such that synthetic chemicals account for 77% of the 559 chemicals tested chronically in both rats and mice (Table 4). The natural world of chemicals has never been tested systematically. One reasonable strategy is to use a rough index to compare atid rank possible carcinogenic hazards from a wide variety of chemical exposures at levels that humans typically receive, and then to focus on those that rank highest (5,47,48). Ranking is a critical first step that can help to set priorities for selecting chemicals for chronic bioassay or mechanistic studies, for epidemiological research, and for regulatory policy. Although one cannot say whether the ranked chemical exposures are likely to h-e of major or minor importance in human cancer, it is not prudent to focus attention on the possible hazards at the bottom off a ranking if, using the same methodology to identify hazard, there are numerous common human exposures with much greater possible hazards. Our analyses are based on the HERP index (Human Exposure/Rodent Potency), which indicates what percentage of the rodent carcinogenic potency (TD50 in mg/kg/day) a human receives from a given daily lifetime exposure (n&kg/day). TD50 values in our Carcinogenic Potency Database span a lo-million-fold range across chemicals (49). (Table 5). Overall, our analyses have shown that HERP values for some historically high exposures in the workplace and some pharmaceuticals rank high, and that there is an enormous background of naturally occurring rodent carcinogens in typical portions of common foods that cast doubt on the relative importance of low-dose exposures to residues of synthetic chemicals such as pesticides (5,47,50). A committee of the National Research CounciLNational Academy of Sciences recently reached similar conclusions about natural vs. synthetic chemicals in the diet, and called for further research on natural chemicals (51). The possible carcinogenic hazards from synthetic pesticides (at average exposurea) are minimal compared to the background of nature’s pesticides, though neither may be a hazard at the low doses consumed (Table 5). Table 5 also indicates that many ordinary foods would not pass the regulatory criteria used for synthetic chemicals. For many natural chemicals the HERP dues are in the top half of the table, even though natural chemicals are markedly underrepresented beczu~e so few have been tested in rodent hioassays. Caution is necessary in drawing conclusions from the occurrence in the diet of natural chemicals that are rodent carcinogens. It is not argued here that these dietary exposures are necessarily of much relevance to human cancer. Our results call for a re-evaluation of the utility of animal cancer tests in protecting the public against minor hypothetical risks. -~ Misc0nception 17: Tbe tonic0logy of synthetic CbemicalE is different fmm that of natural chemicals. It is often assumed that because natural chemicals are part of human evolutionary history, whereas synthetic chemicals are recent, the mechanisms that have evolved in animals to cope with the toxicity of natural chemicals will fail to protect against synthetic chemicals. This assumption is flawed for several reasons (37.39). 5 a) Humans have many natural defenses that make us well buffered against normal exposures to toxins (3’0, end these we usually general, rather then tailored for each specific chemical. Thus they work against both natural and synthetic chemicals. Examples of general defenses include the continuous shedding of cells exposed to toxins -- the surface layers of the mouth, esophagus, stomach, intestine, colon, skin, and lungs ere discarded every few days; DNA repair enzymes, which repair DNA that was damaged from many different sources; and detoxification enzymes~ of the liver and other organs which generally target classes of toxins rather then individual taxins. That defenses are usually general, rather than specific for each chemical, makes good evolutionary sense. The reason that predators of plants evolved general defenses is presumably ta be prepared to counter a diverse and ever-changing array of plant toxins in an evolving world; if e herbivore had defenses against only a set of specific toxins, it would be at a great disadvantage in obtaining new food when favored fwds became scarce or evolved new toxins. b) Various natural toxins, which have been present throughout vertebrate evolutionary histoly, nevertheless ceuse cancer in vertebrates (37,40). Mold toxins, such as aflatoxin, have been shown to cause cancerin rodents end other species including humans (Table 4). Many of the common elements ere carcinogenic to humans et high doses (e.g., salts of cadmium, beryllium, Furthermore, nickel, chromium, end arsenic) despite their presence throughout evolution: epidemiological studies from various parts of the world show that certain natural chemicals in food may be carcinogenic risks to humans; for example, the chewing of betel nuts with tobacco has been correlated with oral cancer world-wide. c) Humans have not had time to evolve a “toxic harmony” with all of their dietary plant% The human diet has changed dramatically in the last few thousand years. Indeed, very few of the plants that humans eat today (e.g., coffee, cocoa, tea, potatoes, tomatoes, corn, avocados, mangoes, olives, and kiwi fruit), would have been present in e hunter-gatherer’s diet. Natural selection works far too slowly for humans to have evolved specific resistance to the food toxins in these newly introduced plants. d) DDT is oRen viewed es the typically dangerous synthetic pesticide because it concentrates in the tissues and persists for years, being slowly released into the bloodstream. DDT, the first synthetic pesticide, eradicated malaria from many parts of the world, including the U.S. It was effective against many vectors of disease such as mosquitoes, tsetse flies, lice, ticks, and fleas. DDT wes also lethal to many crop pests, and significantly increased the supply and lowered the cost of food, making fresh nutritious foods more accessible to poor people. It wes also remarkably nontoxic to humans. A 1970 National Academy of Sciences report concluded: “In little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria, that would other wise have been inevitable (52).” There is no convincing epidemiological evidence, nor is there much toxicological plausibility, that the levels normally found in the environment ere likely to be a significant contributor to cancer. DDT wes unusual with respect to bioconcentration, and because of its chlorine substituents it takes longer to degrade in nature then most chemicals; however, these are properties of relatively few synthetic chemicals. In addition. many thousands of chlorinated chemicals are produced in nature and natural pesticides also can bioconcentrate if they ere fat soluble. Potatoes, for exemple, naturelly contain the fat soluble neurotoxins solanine and chaconine, which can be detected in the bloodstream of all potato eaters. High levels of these potato neurotoxins hsve been shown to cause birth defects in rodents (37). e) Since no plot of lend is immune to attack by insects, plants need chemical defenses -either natural or synthetic -- in order to survive pest attack. Thus, there is a trade-off between naturally occurring pesticides end synthetic pesticides. One consequence of disproportionate concern about synthetic pesticide residues is that some plant breeders develop plants ts be more insect-resistant by making them higher in natural toxins. A recent case illustrates the potential hazards of this appmach to pest control: When a major grower introduced a new variety of highly insect-resistant celery into commerce, people who handled the celery developed rashes when they were subsequently exposed to sunlight. Some detective work found that the pest-resistant celery contained 6,200 parts per billion (ppb) of carcinogenic (end mutagenic) psoralens instead of the 800 pph present in common celery (37). Misconception #FL-Pesticides and other eynthetlc r.hemicaIs are dim-up&g our hormonea Synthetic hormone mimics ere likely to be the next big environmental issue, with accompanying large expenditures. Hormonal factors are important in cancer (Misconception t2). A recent ho* ‘. (531, holds that traces of synthetic chemicals, such as pesticides with weak hormonal activity, may contribute to center end reduce sperm counts. The book ignores the fact that our normal diet contains natural chemicals that have estrogenic activity millions of times higher then that due to the traces of synthetic estrogenic chemicals (54,551 end that lifestyle factors can markedly change the levels of endogenous hormones (Misconception X2). The low levels of exposure to residues of industrial chemicals in humans are toxicologically implausible es a significant cause of cancer or bf reproductive abnormalities, especially when compared to the natural background (N-56). In addition, it has not been shown that sperm counts really are declining (577, and even if they were, there ere many more likely causes, such es smoking and diet (Misconception Y 2). Misconception x9: Regulation of low hypotheticd risks advances public health. There is no risk-free world, end resources are limited; therefore, society must set priorities based on which risks ere most important in order to seve the most lives. The EPA reports that its regulations cost $140 billion per year. It has been argued that overall these regulations harm public health (58-611, because “wealthier is not only healthier but highly risk reducing.” One estimate indicates “that for every 1% increase in income, mortality is reduced by 0.05%” (59). In addition, the median toxin control program costs 58 times more per life-year saved than the median injury prevention program and 146 times more than the median medical program (62). It has been estimated that the U.S. could prevent 60,000 deaths a year by redirecting resources to more cost effective programs (63). The discrepancy is likely to be greater because cancer risk estimates used for toxin control programs are worst-case, hypotheticel estimates, end the true risks et low dose ere often likely to be zero (5,38,61)(Misconception t5). Regulatory efforts to reduce low-level human exposures to synthetic chemicals ere expensive because they aim to eliminate minuscule concentrations that now can be measured with improved techniques. These efforts we distractions from the major task of improving public health through increasing knowledge, public understanding of how lifestyle influences health, end effectiveness Basic biomedical research is the basis for in incentives and spending to maximize health. improved public health end longevity, yet its cost is less then 10% the cost to society of EPA regulations. Rules on air and water pollution ere necessary (e.g., it wes e public health advance to phese lead out of gasoline) and clearly, cancer prevention is not the only reason for regulations. But worst case scenarios, with their con~comitant large costs to the economy, are not in the interest of public health and can be counterproductive. 1. 2. 3. :: :: 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Kouw. CL. Rkr. LA.G..Mih. 8-A.. Hamkey. B.F., H.mr, A.. Edwud,. B.K. ai,. (1995) SEER conc.9 Slalhtr RevLv. 1973. 1992. @hicnd cinnccr Inrduc, Bctbcsda. MD). Ll, LD (198,) Tne OYIU of MCS. Qumiutivc enln,wr d .vd&bk tih of cmmrin the United Sum today. 1. Nail. -I, .._, .D.,” -1, .., 6ac.rw*.:66:,,9,-,30!.. Deem, 5.3.. B~OLV/J.. Stme. B,., Miller. B.A.. kme. RE. Frummi FJ., Jr. (1995) Rscmt UIICC~trcrdr in Ihe United Sulsr. J. Nail. Cow. Im,.: 111:,75.182. Ames B.N. Go,., LS., Wikrr. W.C. (1995) Xx yuse, .nd pmmiuo of tncc,. P,K. Nd. kad Sci. LISA: S-2:5258-5265. Gold.‘LS.. &,x,‘T.H.. Stem, SR.. Mmk N.B. Ammcr BN. (1992) R& clrdnogcnr: Ssning prioridc,. Scirrcr: u8:261-26% ;lyv.y? Ifirk Ad.: IO:14 Gcqh. M. (w90) How much unEc* can &A &a Amc~. B.N.. Sbigcnrg,. M.K., H,~.z,,. T.M. (,99J)Oxidmu, .ndaxi&nu. .d tk dcpcnemive diruscs d&g. Proc. Nd. Ad. sci. USA; w:79,5-7922. Pam R. Loocz. AD.. Borchm. J.. II,,,,,. M.. Ha&, C.. I,. (19%) Mw‘zIi~fra Sm+i”g in Dw.loprd Cc”““iu 1950so-2co0. oxf~d.‘En&nb: tied hi”e’“i;y Pr&. Fnga. C.G.. Ma.&+ PA.. Shigclug,. MIC. HclkxA, HJ.. ,.=A. RA.. Amu. B-N. (1991) I\lsabic add F-s .gainst cndogsrmr oxidarivc damage in hmnm ‘psm. Pra. Nd. Acd. Sci. USA, 88:1 lWA-llo3a Ames BN. MM PA. Fr.g.. C.G.. sligmng~ M.K.. Hqm. TM (1994) AmJo*r prrvcnsol cfbhh defcpl mdcmacr. In: h&is& D.R O&n, A. cds. Mok.MaGzted DcrrIapvwl TotiiW NW Ydr: plenum FXbJithipg Cmpn$m. 243-25.9. Fng.. CG.:M&. PA.. &mb& A,., RmpsL DA,.. Ames. RN. (19%) smating md law tiudnt MI m-se mwd.dn d.m.gc m +-em DNA. Mu. Ru.; 36,:,9%20X Ji B.-T. Shq K-0.. line MS., zhmg. W..Wxbold.q S. Ga. Y.-T.. Ybtp. D.-M.. Tim.F. (1997) PumaI ciga~~e nnW ad the risk of cbildhd ca,c.zr mm-.~goffrpring d n.m.16~ m&en. I. cfNod. CF. I+; ss:Ug-y. Cxistm. S.. H,gcm, TM.. Shigcnng,. M.K. tics. B.h. (1997) Chrmic idcdm d dlmm~on lud m nytiy and u”cer. In: Puloulcr. J. Htig, S., Cdr. “icrobu nm,dMnii s.aq: ,n,<crim 01 o 6yu o,Cawr. ‘++d: Oxford Uruvsn~,’ Rnl. 0 )x”‘. Sh.cm E hiim, EJ., Covey. JM.. Kcim. K fv ., Pmsr, M (1988) AmvUcd =.a+ mdu? plmged DNA dmmgc m ncighbdrin; cds [pbbrbsd cm,,,,,, ,pr~ in Gtiogcsris 1989 M.~IM):6281. Camwgrrurr. 9:2297-2301. YundGm. K.. Mikr. B.E.. Hcancr. G.H. (1986) Macrophagc-mcdiucd ao, d drag-ruirun, variti h n mouic munm~ry ulmor u.0 Enc. cami Rzr.: 4632346.2431. HcndcB.E., Roar. R.K.. pi~c, MC. (1991) Townrd the primly prrvcntim d unccr. SC~KI: 254:1131-1138. Fcigclron. KS., Hmdsrwn. B.S. (19%) Ermgau md bru,, -I. C.rc*og.ncri: 17:2279-2284.. Blak. 0.. Pamnon, B.. Suhr. A. (1992) Fmi~ vegctabla .nd c.nmr prw&m: A review ofthe =@cmiologic midcncc. NW. ord c2nc: 1&l-29. c,ance, covrrs COnwO~~2:325-357. Slcinmuq K.A.,Pcocr. ,.D. (1991) “egcubkr, fmi< ad U~CLI. I. Epidemic4 Hi& MJ., Giacor~ A.. C&U CPJ. (,w) Epidunidogy o/D&r md GKU. 74 ut Su~ru. En nd: Elks Honuccd Ii&d. Htmkr. DJ.. WiMf WC. (1993) Dia. Wy six. md bran mm. Epidmd. hr.; 15:110-l B2. 7 21. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3% 39. 40. 41. 42 43. M. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52 53. 54. 55. 2: 59. 60. 61. 62 63. 64 BLxk. G. (19.~2) ~hlhcd.u NTPO” , dc for .ntioxidmu in reducing cana, rirk. No. Revirw~M:207-213. Pmmrwn, B.H., Bkd, G., Rolcnkrgcr, W.F., Pm. D.. Kahk, LL (19%) Fti md vcsebk. m the htiun die,: D.u fm the NHANE.5 n mrvq. Am. J. Pvblk “#‘ah: 80:,443-,449. A Natimd Onssr hrulirti Grqhic. (19%) why UI five7 1. Nd. 6rc. Id.: M:1314. srinmcu. EA., Pcucr, I.D. (19-s) vsgcIxt4u. hiI. an.3 ODccr prm.ntieo: * mc,w. 1. Am Did Auoc.: 96:1027-,039. Blount. B.C., M.&M.M,Wchr C. ~.cGls~or !J.. Hirq R, Wmp. G.. Wid;nmum~c.S.N.. E”mm.R.B.. Ama. B.N. (1997) Impliohnr for cancer d nsvmd Fohtc &h&r+ CYIkc, ud llL,,’ mrrmdon mm hDNA d dumwromc hukqc dunqc. Prm. Nod Acad SC;.LISA. W:i prca. Scnti. FR, Pikh. S.M. (1985) hdysis d fdlts dul fm Lc -d NuiaYl Hulrh d N~titim Eumhutian SUWCYWANES Ig. 1. NUT.; 115:139&402 B&y. LB., W+,,er, EA.. ~&in&s GJ., A+, P.E.. i\ppkdmt H.. titi. C.C.. tir~qnni I.. Dimhtg. IS. (1979) Fehio ud baurboldr. Am I. C,ba. N&T.: k-m ~talu( and kmudagiul ‘mmng,‘in p-y bid c.lddy psnm‘ h urbo lowillanx 32:2346-2353. B.&y, LB., W.g~r, P.A., ~l,ri.t&in. GJ.. Dwis, C.G.. Appkhf. H.. A”+. PE. Dx=y. E.. D+=+. J.S. (1982) Fob.% .od irm dducmu fm w&l la-mconc hauubol.,,. Am. 1. C,k. NW.; .uuu md ban.loiogiul finding‘ in k&k ad Spnirh-Amaiun 35:1023-,032. Wdlok L. Wmdrv A.. Lmb. R. Amer. B. (19947)Nuti6m.l d @ve drica d ~-km- 1d.w 10 fcnitiry in&.-a in n-m&i mm. FAkiJ. (Abihic,); in hi. ;$a, Y. (19%) “iumi, B-12.h: nqkr. E.E. Fikr.LJ.. ds. PrueuXwLdgr in Nuairin.Wuhingtm. D.C.:JlSIPmr, 191 p&u miring vndl into G&nm.sin.k. S.N.. Fidl. s. (1994, Bmc marroly ecus fmml viumin 812. d fdus&ciau DNA. Blch-&3:1656h Zhng. I.Z. H&g. SM.. Svadtid, ME (1993) Pdy(ADPtissucl d ti.i,,~m~ mu 1. NM,,.: 123~1349-55. ,,ccba,. E.L (1993) N&in d&&q .d MOC, in wanm.,. An. Cdl. NW; u:412-6. in rbc US pqxhim. Am.,. Ch. NW.; 50338-16. Suhr.A.F..Blod;.G..,unc~.L.D.(,989)Fd~~~udfoodArm,. BN..Pmfcl, M., cd& Lx (19w) Diary pcl.iddc‘ (99.99% dl+?=l,. Pra. Nd. .k‘d. sci. US& 11’1:777-7781. A,,,+ ~2-4.. pm& &A.,~, is. (,9-x,) NC,,,~, c,mnkd .I,., .)ntkm obcmiul,: Cmpndvc totigyy. Proc. Nd. Acd Sci. USA: rw782-7786. d p&k c.rhqtis hunir in fd. Tn: Tmrmt, D.. .A. Fee-4 Ckmid Gold. LS.. She, T.H.. Am,. BH. (199’0 Prioritiut*n Rid AmlyrL. Lmdm: Gy.m L Ha,, Ud. in ~CII. ~mmc,.B.N.. G.,M, LS., Sh+mga, h4.1~ (~5~6P Cmmpcvauian. ,dcz~t high& -ruxts d risk usarmenl RLtti..: ,6:613x517. Gold. Id.. She. T.H., her. B.N. (1997) Ovewicw md t+lc .rx.l YI d dx a+mic 7ri.rr PolmL-$ Md GLMIOXiCR LLb. Boer Rum. l$.%~~~z~~4 Lsy _D__,-., F .A,~ -...- “&k - . . .. “fca,&0~bc . . -- .~~.~~ ~uttcruonh, B. cmcuy. R., hhgm,. K. (1995) ,i ,rnlcgy fcie,~iJiahing mode d aaim d chemiul aknopen~ .I. guide for qruchu m ,iik ~,ss,mm,. Cant. ,a,.: 93:129-146. AIRS. B.N.. Sbigmq,. M.K.,, Gold. LS. (1993) DNA krims. iduibk DNA n+r. -6 cell ditiim: lbrcc key fsams in mvlngmcrir and urcinogmsrra. Environ. HLd,h Pmprct.; 101(supp15J:35~. her, B.N., Gold, Ls. (19%) olaniul cxchogencsh: Tm many rodm ordnaemr. Pnx. N&l. AC& Sci. USA, 87:7772-7Th5. Nsdonnl Ruurc,, Cam&.,. cd. (1994) Scirncr and hdgnuti in Rirt A.mrssmum. (Caomioss cm Ri,k Anesmncnt of Huudour Air PO”“unU. wuhingcn. D.C.), Gaylm. D.W.. Gold. 1s. (1995) Quick caim.u d Ihc quhtory rLavlly ds dac bud m lhc muimum lnknlcd doe fa mdent bilwruys Rqd. Toxxico,. Pkmulcd.: 22:57-6.X Gob, LS. Slce T.H. Stem B.R M.&y. N.B.. Am,. BN. (1993) PC”& clrdnogmic hazards fm n.tw.l .“d I+.+ ci,m;n;iul.:*s~ c.&,k,. i: C.&m CR.. d. Cm,aivr ,hi,avn.wl RL~hwa..-d. Boer Ram, FL: Lewis hb4hhen. 203-235. - .. .. _ ^ . ^ I.^_~ . .~. --~~:L*- ..A---~c-&, scklce;&$.7,.2~, Anus. an..hug.w. IL. b.n~. I..>. (,x4, luNun n: rrynu famed by cdling fmd. cmprirm 0, bknsuy Gold. LS.. Slar. T.H.,,M&y, N.B., Amer. B.N.%%ie=? rcwks with dlcr *mud* in *e Cutiqenic PoImcy Iklabau. c hnc. hr.: 83~21.29. - .. . . . . _ ^ r 1 ^.. n-LI-.L . Cold. LS.. sla nc. ~I.“.. MMley,n.d.. CI.mlxe,. “_T)_,IK.7M~. q c4a.b.~ lm Gold. L, Amer. BX. (195T c%rcinxmic LS.. Zcigcr. E...~d,. “~~t ofcarc~geic PO~my f.+ $h‘mxici‘y D‘uabalu. Bca R-m, a, r c Plcrr, 1=x5. Gold. L.C. G.lfti;e~ G.B.. she. T.H. (ww) salmg prm”~.zcr MO ng pdbls spdnogmic ham* m the wmkpkce. In: “h* Caret ApplLnriar. IimhU~w. ad CM. Chis,i.,,i. DC.. Kelwy, LT., cd,. CkmbdRirt Auurnud 0-* *rcup.ridNedIk. .I, -~ UrcolWwu ran 1 m.LI:.L:-_ c _,._ a, .-YWC rrorpcr,. ns‘-L,: ‘“V‘u,un~ Y’“,W 7.-JXI, Nuicd Rcwnh Ccmcil. (199.5) Clrcinogrm and Aryi.mcvur~~ in ha HD&I: d Cqwhn JNmrally Occwin# Md 5 uknk Subruncc,. Whinpm DC.: N&d Au&my Prcrr. x. a~.,., Aodrmy of Mcnar (U.S.). Cmmime m Rexarch in Ihc lift Sckncu. cd. (1970) Tk Lifr ScirKu: Recrnr Pqnss md A.w,icc&m 10 “au,,,,, Atmti,. ,k Wdd c,‘Bidwla,_ Rurorcl. R~qvirmwntfo, rk F”lw~. (X,&m., Audemy d Sdslccr. Wuhinglal). 526 p. Cdhn, T.. Lhmmski, D.. Mycn. JP. (1’9%) Our Sdrn Furwe: Arc w Tktitig ow Ferlilily. IruUi~mce. ad Swid?: A S&d,% Ddrcrivr Sm-,. NW Yak: hnm. mk in hum.n die.r Ehrm. Sn. Sdc. S.H. (199.4, Disuw and cnvimnm at,,, crcmgcnr md awi~vogmr .,A their pa&k PoNbion h!&.; 1129.33. ’ Sdc. S.H. (1995) Fntimmvl and diary uvogsl, .nd hum.,, hulih: L the a problem? Em. Health Pap.: 103~346451. Rhdi, IL, B,&, G. (,m) phyloc,,rc.p omvn, dfdr --A cmpdivm d lim-mm vduu. Nxr. Cmc.: 26:19%. Koku G. (15%) Muwing ma up. .pana by ,pcm. nhs New Yqt Tbw. fiy 4:W. Ed&). (=‘-I). Vim.;. W.K. (1992) F&i Trdeo~. Clxfod. C,&nd: orford “m.hty hsr. Sh.n.hm. I.D., TX-, A.,,. (19%) How to t.,k .kzcu tisk: How vc&hlmtioned rcgtimr un UI: ‘Ip13. WutigM. D.C. Hait. c Fauld.d.m. Hah.bW. cd (1%) RLk Cm.v, mdtivea Sad: Guing Burrr Rc.dfsfraRq&icm Hex Y&z oxfad Univentiy Press. Gnhm. J. ‘Wimcr. J., CA. (i995) Rid wrsau RLk Tmdeofls Lt Proucr+ Hdli ad Ik EmvironnwnI. htidge. tiauchu~: H.n.rd UAkity Pru,. KC. Gdmn, I.D. (195) Fivchundd life-utig Tmgr.T.0.. A&am, MB, Plirkin,J.S.. S&an. D.G.. Siegel. I.E.. WM. ikwcruionr d tkir scdfenivcncrs. Rtik AMI ‘.: 15:369-389. In: Hh, R. cd. Rirb, Cmlr. d hvcmnenu b Mewing. Tmgs. T.O.. Gnhm. I.D. (,$%I The oppommity cat, d h.+u?d md tiwr.kwd: Ge”ing &t,.r R.rdrrfrm R&L. &,. New Yak NY: C&d “nircni~y Pms. 165.173. bnu.I.RM.. lJlh.4. B.M.. “dcrio.M.G.,F ‘~~.,ccu. L. Han ER.. Rlioo. A,.. Baa, R-R.. Fti. H-L, Gan. JJ.. Klein. ..’ L. A,hkh &dmlhl for lumtigmi~y in micr.: A pldimmlly nce 3. M.. MilchdL L. FWmx. I. (1969) Bims.y d pcsicjdcr and il!d”,lh Nnd.C.nc.h.: 42:1101-,114. 8 Table 1. Review of epidemiological studies on cancer showing proteaion -.~ vegetables Fracnon of studies showing significant Cancer site cancer protection Epitbelial Lung 24t25 Oral 9i9 Larynx Esophagus Stomach Pancreas Cervix Bladder Colorectal Miscellaneous Hormone-dependent Breast Ovarylendometrinm Prosrate Total Source: Block et al. (18) by consumption of fruits and Relabve nsk (medmn) Low vs. High Quartile) of consumption 2.2 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.3 Table 2. Carcinoeenicitv _ - of natural .Dlant .Desticides tested in rodents (Fungal toxins are not included.) acetaldehvde metbylfonnylhydrazone, ally1 Isothlocyanate, arecohne.HCl, Carcmogens: N=35 benzaldehyde, beniyl a&tat& caffeic acid, catechoi, clivorine, coumarin, crotonaldehyde. cycasin and methylazoxymethanol acetate, 3,4-dihydrocoumarin. estragole, ethyl acrylate. NZ-g-glutamyl-p-hydrazinobenzoic acid, hexanal methylformylhydrazine, p-hydrazinobenzoic acid.HCl, hydroquinone. lhydroxyanthraquinone, lasiocarpine. d-limonene. 8-methoxypsoralen. N-methyl3-methylbutanal a-methylbenzyl alcohol, N-formylhydrazine, methylfonnylhydrazone, methylhydrazine. monocrotahne. pentanal methylformylhydrazone, petasitenine. quercetin, reserpine. &role, senkirkine, sesamol, symphytine Noncarcinogens: N=29 atmpine, benzyl alcohol, biphenyl. d-carvone, deserpidine, disodium glycyrrhizinate, emetine.2HCl. ephedrine sulphate. eucalyptol. eugenol. gallic acid, geranyl acetate, b-N-[g-l(+)-glutamyl]-4-hydroxy-methylphenylhydrazine. acid, glycyrrhetinic acid, glycyrrhizinate. disodium, p-hydrazinobenzoic isosafrole, kaempferol, d-menthol, nicotine, norharman, pilocarpine, piperidine. protocatechuic acid, rotenone, rutin sulfate, sodium benzoate, turmeric oleoresin. vinblastine These rodent carcinogens occur in: absinthe, allspice. anise. apple, apricot, banana,basil. beet, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, caraway, cardamom, carrot, cauliflower, celery, cherries. chilli pepper, chocolate milk, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, coffee. collard greens, comfrey berh tea, corriander, currants, dill, eggplant, endive, fennel, garlic, grapefruit. grapes, guava, honey, honeydew melon, horseradish, kale, lemon, lentils, lettuce. licorice, lime, mace, mango, majoram. mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, onion, orange, paprika, parsley, parsnip, peach, pear, peas. black pepper, pineapple, plum, potato, radish, raspberries. rhubarb, rosemary, rutabaga, sage. savory. sesameseeds, soybean, star anise, tarragon, tea, thyme, tomato. turmeric. and t&p. Source: Gold et al. (38) 9 Table 3. Carcinogenicity in rodents of natural chemicals in roasted coffee. TJos1uve: knzofuran. benzo(o)pyrene. caffetc acid, al&h d be aid h d be N=19 $e!chol ‘1 >5 6?ibe~&~race~?bsnol ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, furan, fmfural,‘hyh~gen peroxide, hydro&none. iirnonene. styrene, toluene, xylene Not positive: N=8 acrolein, biphenyl. choline, eugenol. nicotinamide. nicotinic acid, phenol, piperidine Uncertain: caffeine Yet to test: - loo0 chemicals Source: Gold et al. ~(40): Table 4. Proportion of chemicals evaluated as carcinogenic. Chenucals tested m both rats and once 330/559 (59%) Naturally-occuning chemicals 131127 (57%) Synthetic chemicals 2571432 (59%) Natural pesticides 35Ki4 (55%) Mold toxins 14/23 (61%) Chemicals in roasted coffee 19/28 (68%) Innes negative chemicals retesteda 16134 (47%) Drugs in the Physician’s Desk Reference 117l241 (49%) Chemicals tested in rats and/or mice * The 1969 study by Innes et al (6.4) is frequently cited as evidence that the proponion of carcinogens is low. as only 9% of 119 chemicals tested (primarily pesticides) were positive in cancer tests on mice. However, these tests lacked the power of modern tests (40). We have found 34 of the hmes negative chemicals that have been retestedusing modem protocols: 16 were positive (a), again about half. Source: Gold er al. (40). 10 [Chemicals Table 5. Rankincc Possible Carcinoneoic Hazards from Average U.S. Exposures. that occur naturally in foods are in boih.] Daily human crposurct Reasonable daily intakes arc used to facilitate comparisons. The calculations assume a daily dose for a lifetime. Possible harnrd: The human dose of rodent carcinogen is divided by 70 kg to give a m&Q/day of human exposure, and this dose is given as Ihe percentage of the l-D% in the rodent (m&/day) to calculate the Human &posurelR&nt Potency index (HERP). i.e.. 100% means that the human exposure in mg/lg&ay is equal lo the dose c&mated m give 50% of the rcdents tumors. ITI50 values used in the HERI’ calculation are averages calculated by Iaking the harmonic mean of the TD5@s of the positive te.s~~in that species from the Carcinogenic Potency D&base. Average TDm values, have pcssible hazard. t&~&uhted separately for r&s and mice, and the more potent value is u%d fOr d~ulating Pnrrihle PMencv . “-“.“.HWllLUldcseof TDSO bvvkd~y~ hazard: rodent carcinoaen Rats Mice HERP (90) Average daily US exposure 1.52 (7.45) 140 EDB: wc+ers (high exposure) (before Ed~ylene ditromick:, 1% mg 1977) Clotibrate. 2 g 17 Clofibke 14 Phenobarbital, 60 mg Phenobarbital, 1 sleeping pill 13.9 1,3-Butadiene, 66.0 mg 6.8 13.Bufadiene: rubber workers (197886) Te&achloroetbylene. 433 mg 101 6.1 Tebachlomlhy1ene: dry cleaners with urn dry-to-dry units (198wo)b 4.0 Fomxildehyde. 6.1 mg 2.19 Formaldehyde: worlrers Ethyl alcohol, 13.1 ml 9110 2.1 Beer, 25; g Mobile borne air (14 hoursiday) Formaldehyde. 2.2 mg 2.19 1.4 Methylene chloride, 471 mg 724 Methylene chloride: woken (194oS0.9 8W Ethyl alcohol, 3.36 ml 9110 0.5 Wine, 28.0 g C-1 Formaldehyde, 598 mg 2.19 (43.9) 0.4 Conventimal home air (14 hoursldav) Caffeic acid, 23.9 mg 297 0.1 Coffee, 13.3 g (4900) Caffeic acid, 7.90 mg 297 0.04 Lettuce, 14.9 g (4900) Safrole, 1.2 mg 51.3 0.03 Safrole in spices ii” d-Limonene, 4.28 mg 0.03 Orange juice, 138 g ;I; d-Limonene, 3.57 mg 0.03 204 Pepper, black, 446 mg Mixture of hydrazises, 0.02 Mushroom (Agoricus bisporus 2woo etc. (whole mushroom) 2.55 g) Csffeic acid, 3.40 mg 0.02 297 Apple, 32.0 g (49w 118 Catechol, 1.33 mg 0.02 Coffee, 13.3 g Furfural, 2.09 mg I?? 0.02 Coffee, 13.3 g (633) BHA. 4.6 mg 0.009 745 BHA: daily US avg (1975) ww Dimethylnitrosamine, (0.189) 0.124 0.008 Beer (before 1979), 257 g 726 ng 18 ag 0.0032 0.008 Aflatoxia: daily US avg (1984. Aflatoxio, (+) 891 Coumarin, 65.0 mg 13.9 0.007 Cinnamon, 21.9 mg Hydroquinoae, 333 mg 82.8 0.006 Coffee, 13.3 g E2 2140 Saccharin. 7 mg 0.005 Saccharin: daily us avg (1977) C-1 c Aniline, 624 mg 0.005 Carrot, 12.1 g (F-1 Cnffeic acid, 867 mg :Lz 0.004 Potato, 54.9 g gz; Caffeic acid, 858 mg 297 0.004 Celery, 7.95 g 197 Furlural, 500 “g 0.004 White bread, 67.6 g (683) .__ 0.003 d-Limonene, 4Bb mg Nutmeg, 27.4 mg (-) 77.5 0.003 Conventional home air (14 hour/day) Benzene, 155 mg f% 297 Caffeic acid, 374 mg 0.002 carrot, 12.1 * (49w 7.9 0.002 Elhylene thiourea: daily US avg (1990) Ethylene tiourea. 9.51 mg G&Z DDT: daily us avg @fore 1972 ban)1 [DDT, 13.8 mgl 0.002 (84.7) 297 Caffeic acid, 276 mg 0.001 Plum, 2.00 g $2; 745 BHA. 700 mg BHA: daily US avg (1987) 0.001 297 Caffeic acid, 240 mg 0.001 (4900) Pear, 3.29 g 6.09 Table 5 conki. 0.001 O.WO9 @JDMH: daily US avg (1988)) Brown mustard, 68.4 mg O.ooO8 [DDE: daily US avg &fore o.ocQ7 o.ooo7 O.CQ36 0.@305 O.CON TCDD: dailv US PYP(1994) Bacon. 11.5-g - ’ Mushroom (Agaricus bisporur 2.55 g) Jasmine tea, 2.19 g Bacon, 11.5 g O.@Nl Bacon, O.CiO4 [EDB: D@y US avg (before 1984 1972 tdl 11.5 g t&l O.KO4 o.coo3 o.coo3 o.cno3 o.oco3 o.ooo2 Tao water. 1 litex (1987-92) M&a, -1.22 g. Beer, 257 g Trm water. 1 liter (1987-92) ca;baryl: daily vi avg (19%) Celery, 7.95 g O.C-302 o.OOco9 O.oooO8 O.oooO8 O.oooO7 Toxaphene: daily US avg (1990) Mushroom (Agaricus bisporus, 2.55 g) FCBs: daily US avg (1984-86) DDE/DDT: daily US avg (1990) Parsnip, 54.0 rag o.oooo7 OJXXO6 O.COOO5 O.MOO5 Toast, 67.6 g Hamburger, pan fried, 85 g Estragole in spices Parsley, fresh, 324 mg o.lxiw3 o.coxI2 O.cwol Hamburger, pan fried, 85 g Dicofol: daily US avg (1990) Cocoa, 3.34 g O.CKOl 0.000005 0.000001 0.m o.ixcoOO1 KJDMH. 2.82 mn (frcm Alar)1 Ally1 isothiocykate, 6i.9 mg -pDE, 6.91 mgl (-4 96 3.96 (-) 1-j 12.5 TCDD. 12.0 pi Dieihylniuos2mine, 11.5 ng Clutamyl-p-hydrarinobeazoate, 107 mg Benzyl acetate, 504 mg N-Nitrosopyrrolidine, 196 sg Dimethylnitrosamine, 34.5 ng IEDB. 420 wl o.lxoO2.35 0.0237 (O.oool%) Bmmodichl-, 13 mg d-Limooene, 48.8 mg Furfural, 39.9 mg Chlomfcrm. 17 mg Carbaryl, 2.6 mg 8.Metboxypsoralen, 4.86 tug Toxaphene. 595 ng p-Hydrazioobenzoate, 28 i-s (-1 (0.799) 0.124 (0.189) 1.52 (7.45) 47.7 LEa gE; 14.1 32.4 I;;$ 90.3 ;I; c-1 5.57 454c 1.74 f-1 32.4 ;g;;;, (41.3) 4.29c 16.9 mg FCBs, 98 “g DDE, 659 ng I-Metboxypsoralen, 1.57 mg -Urethane, 811 ng PLIP. 176 ng Estragole, 1.59 mg 8.Methoxypsoralen, 1.17 mg MeIQx, 38.1 og Dicofol. 544 ng a-Metbylbenzyl alcohol, 4.3 mg Urethane, 115 ag IQ, 6.38 ng Lindane. 32 ng F’CNB (Quhtmne), 19.2 “g Chloroknzilate. 6.4 ng Beer, 257 g Hamburger, pan fried, 85 g Lir!dane: daily us avg (1990) FCNB: daily us avg (1990) Chlorotenzilate: daily US avg (1989) Chlomtbalonil: daily US avg (1990) Chlomtionil. ~6.4 ag <O.oGoxQOl Folpet. 12.8 “g 0.000000008 Folpet: daily US avg (1990) Captan, 11.5 ng 0.000000006 Captan: daily US avg (1990) aI.= = m &m h (-JJDB; (-) = negadve in cancer test (+) = positive canca t&s) 32.4 1.99 kii WJ c-4 (-) EiP (-4 (24.3) 32.9 6) 16.9 g3 ;I; 71.1 93.9 a.sd (-) . zzw i59cd (md, not suitable fOr calculating a bIhir is no[ an average. but a reasonably large sample (1027 workers). CTD~ hammnic man was estimated for the bare chemical born tix hydmhloride salt dAdditional data from EPA that is not in Ihe CF’DB were used IO calculate tkx TD50 harmonic nxms. Source: Gold er al. (40). 12