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.”  

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The
Post a Comment
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more

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
7 comments
Read more