Skip to main content

Cancer drug agents harmful to wildlife?

Harmful neoplastic agents from cancer therapies are leaching into the environment but do we know enough about what this is doing to wildlife and other humans?

Chemotherapeutic drugs, also known as antineoplastic agents, that are prescribed to treat a range of cancer types, enter the aquatic environment via human excretion and wastewater treatment facilities. A review published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry indicates that very few studies have characterized the effects of antineoplastic agents that are released into aquatic environments.



Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide.   With an increasing incidence of cancers in growing and ageing populations, there has been a massive increase in cancer therapeutic drugs. 

Agents from these drugs are leaching into the environment through human excretion and wastewater.  Yet, we know little of the consequences on other humans and animal life in general. 

So, what do we know about the extent of the problem and potential risks?  The short answer is that we know too little, yet we do know that antineoplastic agents can be harmful to non-cancerous cells. 

Adverse health effects associated with antineoplastic agents (cancer chemotherapy drugs, cytotoxic drugs) in cancer patients and some non-cancer patients treated with these drugs are well documented. 

Harmful effects of neoplastic agents include liver and kidney damage, damage to the bone marrow, damage to the lungs and heart, infertility, effects on reproduction and the developing fetus in pregnant women, hearing impairment and cancer. 

Growing concern at the potential harmful effects led The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the US to publish an Alert for health care workers in 2004. 

The authors of the current review note that with hundreds of antineoplastic agents in late-stage clinical development, it is essential to understand the toxicity of these compounds in aquatic environments to inform future regulations.



As lead author Dr Chritopher Martyniuk at the Veterinary College of the University of Florida says:

“The global population is ageing, and cancer-fighting pharmaceuticals are being detected in water systems. We need to be proactive as a scientific community and identify potential gaps in our knowledge regarding the consequences of anti-neoplastic exposure in aquatic organisms.”  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As