American Cancer Society

===

 see CANCER alley (main node)

<div>=</div><div><a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/epa-succumbs-monsanto-pressure-delays-glyphosate-cancer-review">http://www.alternet.org/food/epa-succumbs-monsanto-pressure-delays-glyphosate-cancer-review</a></div><div>
</div><div> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was slated to hold four days of public meetings, Oct. 18-21, focused on essentially one question: Is <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/iarc-scientist-reaffirms-glyphosates-link-to-cancer-as-monsantos-reque-1906676980.html" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">glyphosate</a>, the world's <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/monsantos-glyphosate-most-heavily-used-weed-killer-in-history-1882164311.html" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">most widely used</a> herbicide, safe?However, the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meetings <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0385-0380" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">were "postponed</a>," just four days before they were suppose to meet, after intense lobbying by the agrichemical industry, including <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-to-be-put-on-trial-for-crimes-against-nature-and-humanity-1882128925.html" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Monsanto</a>. The industry first fought to keep the meetings from being held at all, <a href="https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CropLife-comment-SAP-08-24-16.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">and argued</a> that if they were held, several leading international experts should be excluded from participating, including "any person who has publicly expressed an opinion regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate."As the meetings drew near, <a href="http://www.croplifeamerica.org/who-we-are/" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">CropLife America</a>, which represents the interests of Monsanto and other agribusinesses, specifically took issue with at least two scientists chosen for the panel, alleging the experts might be unfavorably biased against industry interests. On Oct. 12, the group <a href="http://191hmt1pr08amfq62276etw2.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CLA-Comments-on-SAP-Disqualification-10-12-16.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">sent a letter</a> to the EPA calling for <a href="http://www.cancer.org/research/acsresearchers/kenneth-portier-phd" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Dr. Kenneth Portier</a> of the American Cancer Society to be more deeply scrutinized for any "pre-formed conclusions" about glyphosate. More notably, CropLife called for leading epidemiologist <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/fqpa_srb_panel_member_biosketches_oct_2016.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Dr. Peter Infante</a> to be completely disqualified from panel participation."EPA should replace Dr. Infante with an epidemiologist without such patent bias," CropLife told the EPA. The chemical industry group said Infante was unlikely to give industry-sponsored research studies the credibility the industry believes they deserve. CropLife said Infante has testified in the past for plaintiffs in chemical exposure cases against Monsanto.Croplife also argued that because Infante was the "only epidemiologist on the glyphosate SAP" he would have enhanced influence in the evaluation of epidemiological data about <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/does-glyphosate-cause-cancer-1891129191.html" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">glyphosate and cancer</a>. The CropLife letter was dated Oct. 12 and by Oct. 14, the EPA announced it was looking for additional epidemiology expertise to ensure "robust representation from that discipline." The EPA also said one panelist had voluntarily departed, though the agency refused to say who that panelist was.Challenging Infante's role is a gutsy move. After all, Infante spent 24 years working for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration helping determine cancer risks to workers during the development of standards for toxic substances, including <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/asbestos-industry-knew-and-kept-secret-for-decades-that-their-product--1891149266.html" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">asbestos</a>, arsenic and formaldehyde. His resume includes a stint at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health where he conducted epidemiological studies related to carcinogens, and he has served as an expert consultant in epidemiology for several world bodies, including the EPA and the World Trade Organization.According to sources close to the situation, Infante remains a panelist as of this week, but there is no certainty when the meetings might be rescheduled, and what the panel membership might look like when they are rescheduled. The EPA has refused to discuss who remains on the panel, but some onlookers believe that the EPA was clearly bowing to agrichemical industry interests."This is outrageous. The industry wants to say that our own government scientists, the top ones in their fields, aren't good enough for these panels," said Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist at the Consumers Union. "If the EPA wants to add extra epidemiologists that is great but why didn't they do it before? They are doing this because of pressure from industry."The industry clearly has much at stake, as does the public. Glyphosate is the key ingredient in Monsanto's branded Roundup herbicides as well as herbicides marketed by numerous agrichemical companies around the world. It is also the key to what has been 20 years of sales of genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops developed by Monsanto. The future sales of both the chemical and the crops are being jeopardized by the mounting <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/does-monsantos-glyphosate-cause-cancer-1882118579.html" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">concerns that glyphosate can cause cancer</a> and other illnesses or disease.Scientists around the world have been raising red flags for years over worrisome research findings, and last year the International Agency of Research on Cancer, said <a href="http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-09.pdf" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen</a>. More than <a href="https://www.schmidtlaw.com/roundup-lawsuits-centralized-in-mdl-in-northern-california/" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">three dozen lawsuits have been filed</a>against Monsanto by people claiming Roundup gave them non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and both European and U.S. regulators are evaluating the chemical for continued use.Since the International Agency of Research on Cancer classification, Monsanto has asked the EPA to back industry assurances that glyphosate is safe, and so far, the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/mistaken-release-of-glyphosate-report-raises-questions-over-epas-ties--1891128830.html" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">EPA has done exactly that</a>, issuing a series of reports and memos that dovetail with Monsanto's position. Monsanto also has sought to bolster arguments for glyphosate's safety by pointing to <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?AllField=Glyphosate&SeriesKey=itxc20&startPage=&sortBy=Ppub" target="blank" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">supportive research papers</a> published in late September in Critical Reviews in Toxicology. Monsanto hired the group that arranged for the panel, and most of the 16 scientists involved are former Monsanto employees or Monsanto consultants. At least one, Gary Williams, has also consulted for Monsanto on litigation matters involving glyphosate.It seems more than a little hypocritical that those scientists are presented as credible by the industry, but scientists like Infante and Portier are said to be unfit to advise the EPA because of suspected bias. Like Infante, Portier has a long track record as an independent scientist. He is vice president of the Statistics & Evaluation Center at the American Cancer Society. He has participated in more than 60 other SAP meetings and has served on expert and advisory panels for the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Toxicology Program, and the World Health Organization Food and Agriculture Organization.Portier also would not comment about the industry concerns about him, the postponement or changes to the makeup of the SAP, other than to say that as of today, he remains on the panel. EPA said it is "working to reschedule as soon as possible." But the delay and the maneuvering by industry to influence panel participation does little to bolster consumer confidence for the likelihood of an objective outcome.
=</div>DQA b/c of acs study, along with harvard 6 city<a href="http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/13296/title/Debating-Shelby/" style="text-decoration:none;"><span style="font-size:18.666666666666664px;font-family:'Times New Roman';color:#1155cc;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:underline;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/13296/title/Debating-Shelby/</a>
<span style="font-size:18.666666666666664px;font-family:'Times New Roman';color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">russo 2001
<span style="font-size:18.666666666666664px;font-family:'Times New Roman';color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:400;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been among the most outspoken supporters of the original Shelby amendment and critics of the OMB revision. "The bottom line is that the data that needs to be shared is the data that is part of public policy, the data that actually imposes costs," said William L. Kovacs, vice president of environment, technology, and regulatory affairs at the organization. He claims that the 4,000 new industry regulations established annually cost the U.S. economy $725 billion. Kovacs is primarily concerned about the regulatory impact of studies like a Harvard University-led pollution study that was undertaken to measure the morbidity and mortality effects of particulate matter in six U.S. cities. Dubbed the "six-city study," it was a big reason for Shelby introducing his amendment.==<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">This is the second in a three-part series. Read the first story <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/24/house-science-committee_n_5525609.html?1403707503" target="hplink" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 136, 195); text-decoration: none; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">here</a>.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The conservative “secret science” campaign harkens back nearly twenty years.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In late 1996, industry was trying to fight the Environmental Protection Agency’s first efforts to set a fine particle pollution air quality standard of "PM2.5," the abbreviation used for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), an astroturf lobbying group founded by the petrochemical industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch in 1984, warned that the “effects of the new air quality standards on the economy would be devastating,” based in part on economic analyses conducted by the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University – a group also funded by the Koch brothers. The CSE co-founder and president was Koch Industries vice president Rich Fink, a George Mason economist who has sat on the board of the school's public choice center.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">CSE, the precursor to the Tea Party groups FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, was then led by C. Boyden Gray, an heir to the Reynolds tobacco fortune and GOP kingmaker. In addition to running the tobacco-and-polluter-funded “grassroots” CSE, Gray also managed the Orwellian-sounding “Air Quality Standards Coalition,” an industry coalition coordinated by the National Association of Manufacturers to fight EPA limits on soot and smog pollution.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As industry was not getting much traction with the “it’s going to cost too much” argument, Gray’s group employed street theater as a political tactic.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In January 1997, attendees of a Senate hearing on the proposed EPA rules encountered a group of people wearing white lab coats holding signs saying, “Harvard, release the data!” The supposed scientists in fact came from CSE. In addition, CSE took out ads in the Chicago Tribune attacking the Harvard brand, and writers in the libertarian-industrial network questioned the legitimacy of the studies and demanded the release of the private medical records at their core.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“The unwillingness of the study's authors to allow access to basic data is troubling; such secrecy is incompatible with the modern scientific process,” complained a CSE publication in June 1997.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">CSE also found an ideological hook for the economic-damage attacks, spinning pollution limits as an assault on freedom. “Imagine that – a new government regulation that takes away our freedom to celebrate our freedom," said a CSE radio advertisement in the summer of 1997. The ad claimed that the proposed air pollution regulations would ruin Independence Day by outlawing barbecues, lawn mowers, and fireworks.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The outcome of the campaign was threefold: a weakening and delay of ozone and particulate-matter rules; a $50 million taxpayer-funded project to reconfirm the results; and legislation compelling that the data generated by federally funded research be made available to industry and the public.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Fast forward to last year.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“The data in question have not been subjected to scrutiny and analysis by independent scientists,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) charged in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Yet Smith’s claim that the studies and the underlying patient data did not undergo independent analysis is false. In fact, in 1997, while Smith was serving his sixth term, Congress appropriated $49.6 million for a major research program into fine particulate matter, including a reanalysis of the Harvard and ACS studies by the Health Effects Institute. Smith voted for the bill.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“When we got the medical records from Harvard, I personally signed a confidentiality agreement, as did the investigators at University of Ottawa. The data was conveyed to a locked room with limited access,” said Health Effects Institute president Dan Greenbaum in an interview.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In 2000, the group issued a 297-page report entitled “Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” The explicit goal of that study was “to conduct a rigorous and independent assessment of the findings of the Six Cities and ACS Studies of air pollution and mortality.”<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In short, the HEI assessment confirmed the studies’ results. So did a separate HEI analysis of public records from 90 cities known as the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A charitable interpretation is that this multi-year, multi-million-dollar taxpayer effort advanced epidemiological methodologies. Others might say that polluters knowingly gamed the system by unfairly casting doubt on well-founded science.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Shelby Amendment<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Following these EPA battles, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) drafted the Data Access Act, better known as the Shelby Amendment, in response to his inability to get the underlying medical records from the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society studies.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Shelby amendment mandated that “all data produced under a [federally funded] award will be made available to the public through the procedures established under the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA].” The Office of Management and Budget drafted rules to implement the Shelby amendment that limited the scope to research “used in developing an agency action that has the force and effect of law” and carved out exceptions for confidential data.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Efforts to repeal the Shelby amendment in 1999 led tobacco and oil industry consultant Steve Milloy to coin the term “secret science.” In February, Milloy launched the “Stop Secret Science” sweepstakes, offering a Wall Street Journal subscription to people who sent a comment to OMB on the “secret science” rule. Soon, the Washington Times and the New York Post published “secret science” editorials, and an oil executive attacked the “secret science” of the EPA rules. But the term failed to catch on, perhaps because most politicians couldn’t claim with a straight face that confidential medical records should be made public on industry’s behalf.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Shelby amendment had little actual impact on the Harvard and ACS studies. The ACS data is not funded by federal or public dollars, and is not subject to the Data Access Act. Essentially all of the non-confidential records and data from the Harvard Six Cities research has been made public, a process that was underway before the passage of the amendment.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Whatever the intent, the Shelby amendment marked an important shift in the balance of power between industry and the public, as corporate researchers could get access to federally funded work without any expectation of a quid pro quo.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Forcing a Document Release<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 15px; padding: 0px; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: normal; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Fifteen years later, Rep. Lamar Smith was ready to go further.

<h3 style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">American Cancer Society</h3>

<p style=" color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">The American Cancer Society (ACS) is the largest non-religious charity in the world. As of the fiscal year ending in August of 2007, the ACS had a net revenue 1.17 billion dollars. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Berman_cares_about_animals:clients_exposed#cite_note-24" title="">[25]</a> ACS's daily expenditures exceed one million dollars with 16% going into patient cancer programs. The rest is funneled into expensive research and bureaucratic overhead.Meager prevention programs are designed not to offend the industry. The average American diagnosed with cancer spend upwards of $25,000 of their savings on cures. Claims of progress include people with benign diseases. Those in remission longer than 5 years are declared cured, although many will die from either cancer or treatment after five years.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Berman_cares_about_animals:clients_exposed#cite_note-25" title="">[26]</a> More is spent on cancer than any other medical problem. There are more people living off of cancer than cancer sufferers. Millions of laboratory animals, including rats, mice, monkeys, guinea pigs, cats and dogs have been injected with cancerous material or implanted with malignancies. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Berman_cares_about_animals:clients_exposed#cite_note-26" title="">[27]</a>, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Berman_cares_about_animals:clients_exposed#cite_note-27" title="">[28]</a> According to leading cancer researcher, Robert Weinberg:

<dd>"The preclinical (animal) models of human cancer, in large part, stink… Hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted every year by drug companies using these models." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Berman_cares_about_animals:_clients_exposed#cite_note-28" title="">[29]</a></dd>

</dl>

===