t MEaM AL Smoking, bad diets cause cancer deaths By STEVE KERSTETTER habits list one of every four or five teenagers as daily The Canadian Press smokers, and perhaps a third of that group smoke a pack Two simple, avoidable, everyday vices — smoking a day or more. and poor eating habits — account for thousands of cancer PRESENTED FACTS 180A 104 pue xem 00/8 (y JO v ued) 40 S0Ay Oy) Penes Au PUNOE) 8,011 WO} ‘Smer peINDesI00 40 ‘seyoue evojspues S.u8In pues vor our 0 Aensne “£904 ‘Aopssnyy Burs deaths in Canada every year, say experts in the field of epidemiology. “People are suffering from diseases such as cancer largely as a result of their own approaches to living,” says Dr. Tony Miller ofthe National Cancer Institute of Canada. “I think people underestimate the fact that cancer is . a disease within their voluntary control.” Equally gloomy facts about smoking came out in Ottawa last fall at a seminar on preventing cancer sponsored by the federal government's Medical Research Council: — Perhaps $6 million a year is spent by governments and outside agencies on anti-smoking campaigns. That's a pittance compared with the estimated $100 million a year the tobacco industry spends on advertising and DIET CHANGE . . . Diet changes to reduce can- cer risk include cutting down on fatty foods, paying more attention Miller estimates that more than a quarter of all promotion. 3 r to whole grain cereals, cancer deaths in Canada are caused by tobacco and nearly — Tobaceo is probably the only hazardous consumer : ® Ps fruits and vegetables, a third by bad diets. product in widespread use that isn't closely regulated by x : avoiding salt-cured, In crude terms, that means close to 25,000 Canadians = any level of government. . % salt-pickled and smoked soepin (,Ouyoos NV1d01NY — 38>! foods, and drinking less suse A veer 3004 ween, ‘AHOINOL Siua uOid 4,ueD AQ 1,v0g 8106 euseys Aq =~) 0} EIA /BIOWJO UR ae6ng...) NOeNaG @ 008 uw j807 e\deW 209 yougeg wow 81u10)8 18 VOBBO 20) wo) sdiysvordweys {J we "ppey sAseUD ‘yoy pz 2048 oigesna _pemnpou Gooe e6e odung,. ‘PUNOI pK wy-O1d uy ve vojbuysem ptf Sssousopim uewsely 24) ui @sninj Guwoes ng ® jo SoquAS oy) 190g wos - ern, Boer ‘owo104 wos BOYS 010 26 ve 4Ayd pejou 8 jo Spo ojut ONVYASNI 30HO9 es Kolue 0) pepeau vo ‘e10/0q S80k 12 Goz ( We e18Ig voIBUIYSEM emg & seonposu Ors 04 81 JOyd yno-pewng 20uesme)] OAsig pur Sepory vOQ —sI8Oy 0 ‘sans suo! 16 PEL veouewy Aq pays 2 ued) envoys es waded neq Cup a eunsesid 4p AsepunOg By 1800 weg) seu0sud £,woy ueyd ey) seworeg 21907 , BuRyD-Buem 10 suoye, ous 1d 94 jo woweyd 10 svoie, oy, 08:1 ‘meg ‘youeg Comieg oy) yoru unauvny e199e4 wo Ory 133s THA 401838 ‘suieq j20f01d Bu yepowes veyouy ou, ISNOH G70 SL o Ol) senjen mou ve 8008} Aog-wor SNOLTWM @ 00:0 1AOW Dey UD , "pees Pog oYj, UI SwOES OYs SD jue20uUU! $0 8g jou Aow (40]) 81844 01430 BunoA sy) SPedSNS @UIPOIIOD PIADg * * * GERS CVE qeseests ia s0yD :peunwes 2 on 401900 qos yueq 8 10) 80U3 erveydeis 4A) Si0181G seWIOg SIH Dan 8. pom q we} 89/B0"Y 24) 104 10 SuoTe, trv OHM wOLD00 @ ° et posnjeos £3520 ri 1hseu9 2281) ..018S Oats. S3SNIDI1 ONY JINVENSN! snBoyse> ‘yoors yy - (Zi Peni eee ann 1pne oui se6veye4s eySeosng 087 10 vyrevosne $861 ‘9 Asonagey ‘Aopseupem oF YBnosys Sg61 ‘Lf sour ‘Aopsiny) a year are dying from cancer that is essentially self- inflicted. REDUCE DEATHS Miller says butting out cigarettes for good would dramatically reduce deaths from lung cancer in the long run and sharply reduce deaths from other forms of cancer that are linked to smoking. And reducing the amount of fat in the diet should lead to fewer deaths from breast cancer in women and from bowel cancer in both men and women. Miller and other epidemiologists — specialists who study the risk factors for diseases in large populations — may disagree on the exact percentage of cancer caused by smoking, diet or other factors such as family history and occupational hazards. What they have in common is a resolute faith in the old maxim that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Actually preventing cancer through changes in individual lifestyles is easier said than done, however. Tobacco is a case in point. LINK TO SMOKING Lung cancer is already the leading cause of cancer deaths in men and will probably overtake breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer deaths in women before the end of the decade. The evidence that inhaling cigarette, cigar and pipe smoke causes lung cancer is beyond dispute except by the tobacco industry. The Canadian Cancer Society says probably nine of every 10 cases of lung cancer are linked to smoking. Long-term smokers have a one in eight change of dying of lung cancer. The comparable odds for a non-smoker are one in 200. Even people without scientific training can imagine the dire consequences of bombarding their lungs day after day with the several thousand different chemicals in cigarette smoke — including perhaps 100 known or suspected cancer-causing agents. Yet although smoking is far less fashionable today than it was two decades ago, it may never disappear entirely. Federal Health Department surveys of smoking — The three federal departments most directly involved with tobi working at with each other. The Health Department would cheer if the entire tobacco industry went up in smoke. The Finance Department, on the other hand, benefits greatly from the revenue from tobacco taxes and seems worried about taxing the industry to death. Agriculture Canada is concerned about the welfare of tobacco farmers and evidently sees no reason to encourage them to shift to other crops. Alex Morrison, a former assistant deputy minister of health, says Ottawa has no comprehensive or coherent policy on tobacco and isn’t likely to have one without public pressure. “Ministers will move against tobacco when there's a clear signal from the people to move,” he says. Garfield Mahood of the Non-Smokers’ Rights Association agrees with Morrison that governments follow public opinion rather than leading it. The problem is mobilizing the public on an issue like smoking. “You have to get people angry,” Mahood says. “You have to get them away from this blame-the-victim feeling, which essentially puts the blame on the individual smokers, and shifts the burden to the industry that is causing the problem.” Raising the price of cigarettes through sharp increases in taxes, a total ban on tobacco advertising and measures to protect the rights of non-smokers are seen by many experts as key element in any serious attack on smoking. However, the only part of that strategy that has clearly gained ground in Canada in recent years is relief for non-smokers. The tobacco industry has long had its own voluntary advertising code and has successfully blunted infrequent attempts to replace the code with legislation. It also has successfully defended its view that tobacco is a legal product and, therefore, the industry shouldn't be taxed out of existence. Smoking is often described as the single most avoidable cause of death and serious illness in Canada (Chicago Tribune Graphic; Source: Science magazine, July, 1882 because it is regarded as a major cause of both heart disease and cancer. The statistics on lung cancer alone would probably bear out that assessment. Mortality rates for all kinds of cancer would be about 25 per cent lower today had it not been for a dramatic increase in smoking-related deaths from lung cancer in the last 50 years. The mortality rate for lung cancer in men is 18 times higher than it was a half-century ago, and the rate for women is nine times higher. All this leads many authorities on health to see smoking as public enemy No. 1 and to put anti-smoking efforts far ahead of better nutrition in any general campaign to prevent cancer. “The single strong message people have to get is on alcohol. Agents may prevent cancer Substances that cause cancer have been studied for decades, but few researchers have paid much attention to substances that may actually prevent it. “There's really only just a handful of people working on the subject,” says Dr. Robert Bruce, director of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research in Toronto. He and Dr. Hans Stich of the University of British Columbia have done extensive work on what some people call anti- i or agents that may protect people tobacco,” says Dr. Don Wigle of the federal L y Centre for Disease Control. “Maybe in 20 years, we will be able to be as strong about diet as we are about tobacco.” LOOK TO DIET However, Miller argues that efforts to prevent cancer shouldn't be limited to smoking alone. “There are certainly some people who believe that the really firm evidence is tobacco and we should put all our eggs in that basket,” he says. “I don't subscribe to that #iew.” Even though the evidence is not yet conclusive and the reasons not altogether clear, Miller believes diet is a major factor in the development of cancer of the breast and uterus in women, cancer of the kidney in men and cancer of the intestine and rectum in both sexes. “We can't promise everyone an anti-cancer diet, but we can in fact lead them toward the right direction,” he says. against cancer. Bruce has been exploring the possibility that calcium may counteract the harmful effects of high-fat diets and reduce the risk of cancer of the intestine, a major cause of cancer deaths in North America. Stich has found that beta-carotene, a coloring agent found in carrots, spinach and sweet potatoes that the body converts to vitamin A, seems to have a protective effect against mouth cancers in Asians and Africans who chew betel nut and tobacco mixtures. The idea of drinking more milk or eating more carrots to decrease the risk of cancer has obvious appeal, but both doctors take pains to discourage that kind of speculation for the time being. Stich, for example, says his research has been limited to people with vitamin A deficiencies. Extra beta-carotene helps repair cell damage that could lead to cancer in this group, but it remains to be seen if the same kind of protective effect is found in people with adequate diets. Aon @ 009 CG yessep Aueqdse: pue 018) $861 ‘9 Asonsqe4 ‘Aopseupem 0; yBnosys Sg6l ‘Lf Asonuor ‘Aopsuny) “Has the paper come yet?” we like that sentence ce used nearly every day in almost every home Sometimes it hos a warranted touch of annoyon ce, because the paper is late — ond that's o mark ogainst us. But most times, we like to think, it is becouse o men (or woman) wants his poper He wants it at breakfast or before supper; he wants it betore he goes out for the day or evening: he wants to "get it read” before turning on some TV en. tertainment or betore settling into that James Bond thing that he picked up last night The key word here is ‘wonts He moy not say he ‘likes” it, he may scoff ot its editorials, resent its comics, be bored with its social But there's something more. A good proportion of men, women and maturing children do want the paper, to see what the Prime Minister really said last night, was it true the Premier of British Columbio wos edging towards Quebec and way from Ottawa, what, really was the difference between what Mr. Dietenbaker said and what Mr is the Gazette going to support er view that the sales tax is going up next week, will Walter Lippmann go after President Johnson's latest extension of the war in Vietnam? In short, wel who did kill Cock Robin, ‘ond what really makes Sammy run? The short answer is that if you want to know, you need to read o newspaper, and regularly. The radio and TV, if you listened for 24 hours solid, would perhaps give you a tair ideo. But who can listen for 24 hours? If you turn the knob on for a few minutes.or a few hours you'll get an idea that someone said that a bird with a name like Cookrobert had been killed, or was it stolen?, and that the RCMP or Quebec City police were following up trails or had no trails. The radio or TV might have had some clearer details but just then Aunt Mary phoned about Eric's measles, or the coffee boiled over. or as a matter of fact, though the set was ‘on”, you were thinking of something else and “didn't hear exactly’. Or yes, you did hear what the Finance Minister said ebout toxes going up but Mary, who was there too. got o quite ent impression and said he said they were not going up but could go up, whereas neighbor Bill now shouts from the next lawn where he's been gordening with o transistor at his side and that now that taxes are going down he's going to build that sunroom it can all be straightened out when the poper comes. The paper. of course, will be “full of the news they had on the air last night”, but that's the way it goes, and a fellow will only believe it when he sees it Now don't misread me. | haven't said newspapers are pertect ust said @ man, or a woman, wants them. Needs them. But there's the rub. People putting out something thet other.people need can become complacent, smug, even errogant. Can one be smug and arrogant at the same time? | think so, and | think perhaps we in the newspaper business are sometimes guilty of it The arrogance slips in when we mount a horse called “freedom of the press!” and charge off in all directions — sometimes in the direction of saying that we can do anything and anything we con do we can do any way we want and anything we want to do is right — and we have the freedom to do it all in the great name ot freedom. That smugness is our occasional acceptance of careless reporting. ond then, less frequently but un: forgivably, building on thet by stiking to the carelessness rather than correcting it. The exquisite refinement of this wrong is when the editor bases on editorial on his poper's car reporting and screaming like made, charges up a hill that doesn't exist A third (and then I'll stop) specialty of the house in newspaper faults is to overplay the Keap, the sational, the bosom and the trivial — u: people want. | don't think eith be proved — but we do a heap of sinning on the assumption that they con. Well now, there is this newspaperman's view of o poper's strength and weakness. The next man's to improve his poper is as great os mine, but | ght it might be reassuring to the general reader (@ sater term than gentle?) to know that though we believe newspapers are a good thing ond ore here to stay, we know we must keep im. proving them, ond thet they will stay only so long os we make them good enough so that they must stay Television and radio haven't done us any damage yet — but that may be as much because of their faults @s our strengths. We haven't won the bottle with those media yet. nor the battle to put out the best newspapers we can. We're still fighting both bottles and | hope both will be long and hard For if newspapermen stop fighting for news and truth and informed opinion and become simply men in business — then you people out there will quite rightly stop asking has the poper come yet? dweo oy) 18 eyeus: 08 01 UeIpHYD Ue 810% 88010) Sumous Anwoy vom e6euRyd 10 mdworduy ue news, mistrust its financial columns, think its sports is undergraduate and throw the whole thing down in a heap (atter reading it all) with a grunt to his wite that there's nothing new in it | C But he wants it again the next day Why? Because he’s not in this world alone. He wants to know the score each day; where was the fire, what trust company went bust, so they did decide against the Expo Tower, where's there a sale of summer tur niture, are the Americons still losing in Vietnam, and how are the Canucks doing? do} om) y@ seuecs eu _puyeq J0)A@, wieqezyg “pesmywo AQw2 Castlegar News Re-printed from on article by 1. NORMAN SMITH, EDITOR, OTTAWA JOURNAL @s published in The Montreal Gozette September 16. 1965. ‘HN eu yog ‘vessuer pIABg (@suedsng WON UL saBoysa> ‘yoosss Yar - {E11 JONVINSNI INOBY OW SMONM AGOBON ONVUNSNI JOHO9 wez0g Aug. vows, ( His wife wants, too; wants to check what movies are on, the price of late corn, who that hearse wos for at the apartment across the street, who's selling o second-hand sewing machine, what's the gossip from Hollywood, the height of the highest hem; she wants o recipe for disguising left-over beef, the views of Dr Penfield on education for infants and o second coreer for adults, o verse perhaps, or on article on music thet makes her feel she's “keeping up 2 W0o ® UO 81D PAIDIA v09 21 Guipee) 810w e0u0 vewsiey Jol Their children — their children are olso people end find almost as much or as little in the papers os their porents and they hove. in addition, o kind of feeling thot reading the paper makes them still more like people JIASIS IONVINSN' ULIIdWOD W ONIGIAOdd JONVUNSNI JOHO9 wed o6ry & seyew sabeyso> ‘yoors yin - (211