Cancer mortality in agricultural regions of Minnesota

D M Schreinemachers, J P Creason, V F Garry, D M Schreinemachers, J P Creason, V F Garry

Abstract

Because of its unique geology, Minnesota can be divided into four agricultural regions: south-central region one (corn, soybeans); west-central region two (wheat, corn, soybeans); northwest region three (wheat, sugar beets, potatoes); and northeast region four (forested and urban in character). Cancer mortality (1980-1989) in agricultural regions one, two, and three was compared to region four. Using data compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics, cancer mortality was summarized by 5-year age groups, sex, race, and county. Age-standardized mortality rate ratios were calculated for white males and females for all ages combined, and for children aged 0-14. Increased mortality rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were observed for the following cancer sites: region one--lip (men), standardized rate ratio (SRR) = 2.70 (CI, 1.08-6.71); nasopharynx (women), SRR = 3.35 (CI, 1.20-9.31); region two--non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (women), SRR = 1.35 (CI, 1.09-1.66); and region three--prostate (men), SRR = 1.12 (CI, 1.00-1.26); thyroid (men), SRR = 2.95 (CI, 1.35-6.44); bone (men), SRR = 2.09 (CI, 1. 00-4.34); eye (women), SRR = 5.77 (CI, 1.90-17.50). Deficits of smoking-related cancers were noted. Excess cancers reported are consistent with earlier reports of agriculturally related cancers in the midwestern United States. However, reports on thyroid and bone cancer in association with agricultural pesticides are few in number. The highest use of fungicides occurs in region three. Ethylenebisdithiocarbamates, whose metabolite is a known cause of thyroid cancer in rats, are frequently applied. This report provides a rationale for evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of this suspect agent in humans.

References

    1. Environ Health Perspect. 1997 Oct;105(10):1126-30
    1. Environ Health Perspect. 1997 Oct;105(10):1068-77
    1. Cancer. 1998 Jan 15;82(2):375-88
    1. Environ Health Perspect. 1998 Apr;106 Suppl 2:761-75
    1. Environ Health Perspect. 1998 Jun;106 Suppl 3:875-80
    1. Environ Health Perspect. 1998 Aug;106(8):437-45
    1. Environ Health Perspect. 1998 Aug;106(8):447-57
    1. Am J Ind Med. 1982;3(3):247-57
    1. Int J Cancer. 1991 Apr 1;47(6):803-10
    1. Lancet. 1991 Oct 26;338(8774):1027-32
    1. Am J Ind Med. 1993 May;23(5):729-42
    1. Environ Health Perspect. 1993 Jul;101 Suppl 2:33-8
    1. Environ Health Perspect. 1993 Oct;101(5):378-84
    1. J Occup Med. 1994 Nov;36(11):1240-6
    1. Environ Health Perspect. 1995 Jun;103(6):568-73
    1. Int J Cancer. 1996 Jan 3;65(1):39-50
    1. Environ Health Perspect. 1995 Sep;103 Suppl 6:177-84
    1. Cancer. 1996 Feb 15;77(4):763-70
    1. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1996 Feb;22(1):14-26
    1. Environ Health Perspect. 1996 Apr;104(4):394-9
    1. J Am Coll Surg. 1997 Oct;185(4):388-97
    1. Environ Health Perspect. 1997 Nov;105(11):1222-7

Source: PubMed

3
订阅