Cancer findings stir confusion, controversy Cancer is a confusing, often unruly, public issue at many large scientific meetings. The joint ACS/CSJ Chemical Congress, held in Honolulu, was no exception. A medley of papers on possible causes and cures of cancer was presented during the meeting last week. Taken together, the information in those presentations ranged from the overcautious to the overzealous. The case of the "black pepper paper" exemplifies the turmoil within the scientific community that inevitably contributes to deeper public confusion about cancer. José M. Concon of the nutrition and food science department at the University of Kentucky presented papers on health hazards of spices, in general, and carcinogenicity of black pepper, in particular. Because of apparent structural similarities between known carcinogens (such as safrole) and chemicals in black pepper, Concon and his colleagues began testing black pepper, in animals about two years ago. So far, 30 mice have been treated with extracts from black pepper, containing alkaloids such as piperine. "All of the surviving mice, treated with the extract, have some kind of malignant tumors," Concon says. By contrast, untreated mice have "only benign tumors." Because mice can't tolerate large doses of pepper in their diets, their skins were treated with the black pepper extract. Calling black pepper a carcinogen in "the moderate category," Concon recommends that people not use it. He adds that there's no need for pepper in the diet. That seems straightforward. Such recommendations frequently are made at scientific meetings. However, Concon's recommendations evoked an unusual response at the congress. The executive committee of the Agricultural & Food Division of ACS formally "disclaimed" Concon's paper at a press conference where he was summarizing his findings. "Be careful of the wide sweep of this paper," warns food chemist Robert Feeney of the University of California, Davis, who represented the executive committee of the division. The committee thinks the work "too premature to present," according to Feeney. Though the committee would not comment further on Concon's paper, which was accepted for presentation at the meeting, Feeney noted that he personally didn't know enough about Concon's work to criticize it. "The closer you come to
Pauling: opinion shifting in our favor
human problems, the more damned careful you have to be" with such studies, Feeney cautions. "I have opened a whole Pandora's box," Concon admits. But, he adds, "it's irresponsible for scientists not to inform the public." That is where the matter stood as C&EN went to press. Also during the meeting, somewhat similar warnings were being offered about browned foods. However, these results of food scientist Wayne T. Iwaoka and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, concerned mutagens in overcooked foods,
such as biscuits. "Our preliminary data are significant," Iwaoka says. "Until more research is conducted consumers might avoid excessively browned foods." His statements were not contested by members of the same group critical of Concon's conclusions. Similar confusion surrounds research on cures for cancer. For example, Linus Pauling, twice a Nobel Prize winner and head of Pauling Research Institute in Menlo Park, Calif., has been an outspoken advocate of vitamin C for treating cancer. He has met with considerable skepticism from other scientists. "Starting a year ago," Pauling said during last week's congress, "opinion began to shift in our favor." Indeed the National Cancer Institute is now sponsoring more than a dozen projects on vitamin C. Results on vitamin C are still limited, Pauling admits. But he also says that vitamin C is of "great benefit" to cancer patients. A few years ago, there was a good deal of talk about "quackery," Pauling says. It seems to have quieted down. But the confusion about cancer is anything but settled. That seems as true for the scientists attending the meeting as for the public reading about it in the newspapers. D
Oil price decontrol to hit chemicals slowly The prospect that the government I cals is contained in a new survey from will decontrol the price of U.S. crude chemical analysts at First Boston oil, not now at world prices, addressed Corp., the large New York City inby President Carter last week, is nei- vestment house. Confirming on an ther a surprise nor much cause for industrywide basis earlier comments alarm for U.S. chemical producers. from chemical producers such as Although decontrol would cause the Union Carbide, the analysts find that price of "old oil" (oil from wells in the U.S. basic chemical industry in operation before 1973) eventually to 1978 depended on U.S. oil as a source more than double, this increase would for just 35% of its raw materials needs be greatly diluted as a part of the cost and 30% of its energy needs in dollar terms. As a percentage of total inof making chemicals in the U.S. Besides the slowing effect of step- dustry sales of $75.1 billion in 1978, wise decontrol, a number of other costs tracing to U.S. oil came to 5.9% factors will act to blunt the impact of for raw materials and 2.7% for endecontrol on chemical production ergy. By contrast, the First Boston team costs. The most important is the U.S. chemical industry's relatively small finds that natural gas accounted for dependence on U.S.-based oil for its 53% of the basic chemical industry's feedstocks and energy needs com- raw materials costs in 1978 and 60% of pared to oil dependence in Europe its energy costs. Foreign oil made up and Japan. In addition, the chemical the rest—12% of raw materials costs industry is in a favorable position at and 10% of energy costs. present on costs of its dominant hyFor 1979, cost increases will be drocarbon source, natural gas and minimal for natural gas-based raw gas-derived liquids. materials and energy—5% and 8%, On top of this, the chemical in- respectively, First Boston estimates. dustry, at the current peak in the Estimating on the high side, the business cycle, is having little trouble group puts inflation at 30% for U.S. passing along cost increases to its oil-based raw materials and 15% for energy. For foreign oil-based raw customers. Pertinent background on the im- materials and energy, the correpact of oil price decontrol on chemi- I sponding figures are 50% and 25%. D April 9, 1979 C&EN
7
