The author wrote, "In the end, admitting that most cancers have natural causes rightly shifts the focus on cancer prevention away from individual consumers. That's a good thing, since in the end, you can't always shop your way to becoming cancer-free."

I found this to be an oddly-worded conclusion. Of course you "can't always." There is no such thing as zero risk. But why de-emphasize the role of consumers in selecting products which reduce risk?

I also take issue with the author's conflating"environmental causes" with "natural causes." They are not synonyms. The environment contains everything to which we are exposed. Only some of that is natural; the rest is there because human activity put it there.

Cancer rates have been climbing steeply since the beginning of the industrial age. If cancer is explainable mostly as a product of environmental mutagenic factors (a point with which I agree), than humans are being exposed to far more of them. The cancer rates are nothing less than astonishing today: almost 1 in 2 for American males, and more than 1 in 3 for females, will contract cancer in their lifetimes. Longevity can explain some part of the rise, but even childhood cancers are up markedly. Something in our environment has changed.

What?

More viruses? Unlikely. Although we can expect specific pathogens to wax and wane (such as HPV) and have an influence, pathogens are unlikely to be driving all cancers up uniformly. Is the sun suddenly putting out more ultraviolet radiation? No. Magnetic fields? A statistically minor factor in cancer. Bovine growth hormone? Hormone Replacement Therapy? Hormones probably accelerate a cancer once it gets started, but there's little evidence hormones actually cause cancer.

No, the most likely explanation is the thousands of toxins produced by industry today that did not exist a century ago. And while many of these toxins are now in the atmosphere, dust, and ground water, and thus pretty much unavoidable, a great deal of it is actually contained within products which we purchase and use.

We paint our lips with cancer-causing chemicals. Brush our teeth and gums with cancer-causing toothpaste. Glug cancer-causing diet soft drinks. Buy furniture and house trailers which exude cancer-causing chemicals into the air we breath. Wash up with carcinogenic soap, wipe down the counter with carcinogenic cleanser, spray our flower beds with carcinogenic chemicals, store food in containers that leak carcinogens. These and thousands of other industrial products contain known carcinogens.

Some we can avoid through informed consumer choices.

There are other factors, such as genetics and diet. But the conclusion reached by the author is unsupported and unsupportable. Minimizing exposure to carcinogenic toxins means being a careful consumer. You can shop your way to a lower (but not zero) risk.

Better regulation of industrial practices would help, too.

I'm sorry, but I have to say this: I consider the author of this article to have been irresponsible. Following his advice would bring harm to some who, given better advice, might have avoided it.