Charles Francis AM QC is the honorary legal adviser to Endeavour Forum, an anti-feminist group run by his wife, Babette Francis. Writing in the National Civic Council’s News Weekly magazine of 5 August 2006, Charles informs us that:

It has taken the World Health Organisation [WHO] decades to warn that the contraceptive pill is a Class 1 carcinogen, in the same category as tobacco and asbestos, and no doubt it may take decades for WHO, wedded to the ideology of population control, to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer. (’Pregnancy counselling services under threat’, 11)

My colleague Angie has already dealt with the ‘abortion/breast cancer’ furphy (2 Jul. 2006), so here I want to examine Francis’s ‘Pill as carcinogen’ charge more thoroughly.

Has WHO, in fact, identified the oral contraceptive pill as a Class 1 (actually ‘Group 1′) carcinogen ‘in the same category as tobacco and asbestos’? The simple answer is yes. Have a look at WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and its Overall Evaluations of Carcinogenicity to Humans. Read through ‘Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans (95)’ and you’ll find ‘oral contraceptives’, both ‘combined’ and ’sequential’, along with many other agents including asbestos and tobacco and smoking (in various forms).

So Charles Francis is telling the truth. But is it the whole truth?

To begin with, what does it mean for an agent (or mixture) to be labelled a ‘Group 1 carcinogen’? According to the IARC definition:

This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans … ( http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/pr167a.html)

So far, so good for Francis’s position, although the definition is very broad, saying nothing, for example, about the form or prevalence of the cancer, and applying to a very wide variety of agents and mixtures including neutrons, solar radiation and wood dust. When we look at the Group 1 listing for ‘Oral contraceptives, combined’, we see a note attached to it:

There is also conclusive evidence that these agents have a protective effect against cancers of the ovary and endometrium.

Ah, so the Pill is both carcinogenic and counter-carcinogenic, depending on the form of cancer in question. Let’s now look at the IARC’s press release no. 167 of 29 July 2005 which expands on this precise issue:

An IARC Monographs Working Group has concluded that combined oestrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives … are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), after a thorough review of the published scientific evidence.

At the same time, the Working Group stressed that there is also convincing evidence that oral contraceptives have a protective effect against some types of cancer.

In particular:

There is a small increase in the risk of breast cancer in current and recent users of oral contraceptives. However, ten years after cessation of use, the risk appears to be similar to that in never-users …

In contrast, the risks of endometrial and ovarian cancer are consistently decreased in women who used combined oral contraceptives. The reduction is generally greater with longer duration of use, and some reduction persists at least 15 years after cessation of use.

The IARC concludes that ‘it is possible that the overall net public health outcome may be beneficial, but a rigorous analysis is required to demonstrate this.’ Generally speaking, ‘[e]ach woman who uses these products should discuss the overall risks and benefits with her doctor.’

So, do you think that the ‘Class 1 carcinogen’ assertion made about oral contraceptives by Charles Francis AM QC, honorary legal adviser to Endeavour Forum, was a fair representation of the situation? I don’t, but then maybe I’m picky.

And incidentally, Charles, I hope you’re steering clear of alcoholic beverages and Chinese-style salted fish - both Group 1 carcinogens, I’m afraid.

(Thanks to Dr Betty for her help with this one.)

Filed in: People, Sexuality