There are currently over 85,000 anthropogenic chemicals circulating in the world’s environment (City of San Francisco, 2003). Many of these chemicals have been found in the breast milk of mothers, the tissues of children, and measured in the most remote corners of the Earth (Thornton, McCally, & Houlihan, 2002). Science has established that every single day our bodies absorb and store toxic chemicals; this phenomenon is appropriately called the ‘body burden’ (Northwest Environment Watch, 2004). Some of these compounds have been determined to cause a variety of cancers and other adverse health outcomes. There is a great deal of evidence linking the increased production of chemicals to the increasing rates of breast cancer, Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, as well as childhood leukemia and brain cancer (National Cancer Institute, 2003; Solomon, Ogunseitan, & Kirsch, 2000). However, to what degree these chemicals are contributing to health problems such as cancer is under debate, as is the best policies to protect our communities. Furthermore, the economic burden of cancer has not been fully calculated or internalized. It is now believed that approximately 75% of all cancer cases in the US can be attributed to some form of environmental exposure (American Cancer Society, 2004). These cancers are entirely preventable. This study proposes that preventive measures, such as the precautionary principle (PP), are needed to sufficiently safeguard the health of our people and the environment from the effects of toxics through improved chemical regulation. The definition of the PP originates from the 1992 Rio Declaration, Principle 15: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (United Nations, 1992). The proper mixture of common sense, scientific awareness, and preventative action will promote a sustainable future. This study will focus its attention on environmentally attributable cancers in Washington State (WA) of the United States, the current attempts made to advance the implementation of the precautionary principle, the interaction between chemicals in the environment and cancer, and the economic costs resulting from these cancers.

In January 2004, the Seattle Precautionary Principle Working Group submitted a discussion paper titled, A Policy Framework for Adopting the Precautionary Principle, to the City of Seattle and King County. The objective of this document was to incorporate the precautionary principle into the language of the 2004 city and county comprehensive plans. The Seattle and King County governing officials and policy makers are currently considering this proposal. When discussing the economic costs of childhood disease attributable to environmental quality, the authors had stated, “Researchers and policymakers do not know the overall costs of childhood illness in Washington State” (Gilbert, Diver, & Miller, 2004: 9). Their argument had to be associative using cost-estimates from other states. In response to this lack information, one fundamental goal of this analysis is to determine the economic costs of pediatric cancer. A cost assessment will bolster the argument of the Precautionary Principle Working Group to advocate for precautionary measures and promote the political ambition necessary to do so.