Olivia Newton-John, Singer and Grease Star, Dies at 73 -Worked on Raising Awareness About Environmental Health and Breast Cancer
Olivia Newton-John was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 1992. Her film Environmental Links to Breast Cancer featured Dr. Devra Davis, EHT’s longtime President as well as other experts working in environmental pollution. Her film focused on toxic chemicals in the environment and how even low levels of environmental pollutants can turn on cancer cells. This film was groundbreaking and the environmental health issues Newton-John raised awareness on such as plastics, endocrine disruption, xenoestrogens etc. are well understood to be contributing to breast cancer today. Newton-John was way ahead of her time. Trailer
The film was produced by Francine Zuckerman and Martha Butterfield.
Watch the trailer below. Watch the full film at https://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/6217/Exposure–Environmental-Links-to-Breast-Cancer
Olivia won 4 Grammy awards and had 5 US No.1 singles, old an estimated 100 million records worldwide, and is best known for playing Sandy Olsson, in the 1978 musical film, Grease, with John Travolta.
“It was a real privilege to work with Olivia on the film, Exposure–environmental links to breast cancer in the 1990s. A warm, funny and clever person, she had a genuine sense of humor that managed to bring light into any room. She took the matter of environmental contamination quite seriously and became determined to find ways to address illness through pushing plant medicine to new boundaries. Forever Sandy, forever young.” – Dr. Devra Davis statement on the passing of Olivia Newton John.
“Olivia hosted this serious Canadian documentary about the environmental causes of cancer. Olivia’s segments were filmed at her old Malibu beach house and you can hear the sea in the background. The documentary featured women experts and women facing cancer who were concerned about the toxins in the air, water and food. Produced by Francine Zuckerman and Martha Butterfield it’s thought provoking and frightening stuff.
The program ends with footage of Olivia testifying to Congress asking for more funds to look into the environmental causes. Diane Keaton accompanied Olivia and provided moral support as Olivia was understandably nervous. Olivia ends her eloquent speech with the quote: So when my daughter looks at me and says am I going to get breast cancer? I can say no.
Xenoestrogens are “foreign” estrogens, substances that are close enough in molecular structure to estrogen that they can bind to estrogen receptor sites with potentially hazardous outcomes such as causing cancer. Xenoestrogens are synthetic chemicals released into the environment as pollutants from agricultural spraying (pesticides and herbicides), from industrial processes, and waste disposal (PCBs and dioxins).
- Olivia Newton-John – Environmental Links to Breast Cancer (1 of 4)
- Olivia Newton-John – Environmental Links to Breast Cancer (2 of 4)
- Olivia Newton-John – Environmental Links to Breast Cancer (3 of 4)
- Olivia Newton-John – Environmental Links to Breast Cancer (4 of 4)
Olivia Newton-John’sTestimony to Congress
Link to US Congress Transcript
STATEMENT OF OLIVIA NEWTON-JOHN, ACTRESS, BEVERLY
HILLS, CA
Senator Specter. We now turn to Ms. Olivia Newton-John, an
accomplished actress and recording star, recognized throughout
her musical career with numerous awards, including the Country
Music Association's top female vocalist of the year; honored at
Buckingham Palace by Queen Elizabeth II, where she received the
prestigious Order of the British Empire. She is best known,
perhaps, for her starring role in ``Grease.''
In June 1992, she became the spokesperson and goodwill
ambassador for the Children's Health and Environmental
Coalition. And last October, she hosted a cable special,
``Lifetime Applauds the Fight Against Breast Cancer.''
Welcome, Ms. Newton-John, and we look forward to your
testimony.
Ms. Newton-John. Thank you. I am very pleased to be here
and be a part of this panel this morning. In fact, I am pleased
to be anywhere, for I am one of the lucky ones. I am a survivor
of breast cancer, and not everyone is as lucky as I am.
I think that if you told me a few years ago that I would be
discussing something so personal in public, something so
intimate as this, I would have cringed. But I know that I need
to speak out and something must be done. In 1992, I was
diagnosed with breast cancer. There is no history of breast
cancer in my family. I was, I thought, a very healthy person.
So if it can happen to me, it can happen to anybody.
My treatment was a modified radical mastectomy, and I had
reconstruction on the table, followed by a 6-month course of
chemotherapy. Now, 5 years away from surgery and chemotherapy
and breathing a little easier, I am really examining what
caused my cancer. I did not smoke or drink. I exercised, and I
always ate plenty of my fruits and vegetables. But maybe, was
it in my fruits and vegetables, in the enormous amounts of
pesticides sprayed on our crops? Is it in the polluted air that
I breathe when I am running? Is it in the water I drink, from
the estrogen-mimicking hormones from plastics?
I understand that the Government has spent more than one-
quarter of a billion dollars since the official war on cancer
began under President Nixon. Some two decades into this war, we
still do not have a cure for the most common forms of the
disease. In addition, scientists cannot tell us why cancer
continues to strike in children, why more and more women are
diagnosed with breast cancer, and why more young men are
acquiring testicular cancer.
Of course, we need to allocate more money to cancer
research, and we do need more effective treatments for the 1.5
million people who will be diagnosed this year. But we must be
careful to insist that a large part of whatever moneys are
allocated be spent on figuring out how to prevent this disease
and why is it happening.
It is clear that doctors do not know why most women get
breast cancer. Like me, they have none of the known risks of
the disease. Inherited genetic defects only account for about 1
in 10 cases. And experts can only explain about 25 percent of
these cases.
Since 1971, scientists have known that cancer is caused by
changed genes which control cell growth. But my question is,
what causes this gene to mutate in the first place? What
triggers it?
I believe we need to be looking for the causes in our
environment. We know for a fact that smoking can cause lung
cancer. We need to spend research money finding these links in
your daily lives.
There are two key environmental problems that may be linked
to breast cancer. First, radiation. Everything from nuclear
fallout to routine x rays. And, second, carcinogens and toxic
chemicals found in pesticides, fuels, plastics, and even some
therapeutic drugs. We simply must find funds for the research
that will give us the answer to these life and death questions.
I was relatively young when I was diagnosed. And a
mammogram missed my tumor. And we all have to remember that
mammograms, even when done properly and in the best
institutions, simply do not prevent cancer; they only detect it
after the disease is there. And for women like me, mammograms
can miss tumors. It missed mine.
I am first a mother, a survivor, and a woman who cares for
the planet very much. And we are poisoning our Mother Earth,
and we are poisoning ourselves. And there is recent evidence in
animals and wildlife that indicates that a number of widely
used pesticides, fuels and plastics and drugs can disturb the
body's hormones. And these disturbances could also be keys to
hormonal cancers.
Despite the obvious importance of hormone-disrupting
materials, the Federal Government has spent relatively modest
amounts of money on this issue. Not only must more money be
allocated to cancer overall, but this additional money must be
spent on efforts to understand the causes of and to prevent the
disease.
As a mother, I am deeply concerned that we are failing to
protect our children. My dear friends, Nancy and Jim Chuda,
lost their daughter, Collette, at 5 years old, to Wilm's tumor.
This is a cancer that has been shown to increase in children
whose parents have had workplace exposure to some pesticides.
And because of this personal experience, I am the national
spokesperson for CHEC, the Children's Health and Environmental
Coalition, a national movement on behalf of children's
environmental health.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I am not a scientist. I am a concerned mother and a
citizen. And the main reason I am here is to say that we need
to spend whatever it takes to stop cancer. And I know that with
additional support from the government and the private sector,
we can all make this happen. So that when my daughter looks at
me and says, mummy, am I going to get breast cancer, I can say,
no. [Applause.]
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Olivia Newton-John
I am very pleased to be here and be a part of this panel
this morning--I am very pleased to be anywhere, for I am one of
the lucky ones. I am a survivor of breast cancer. Not everyone
is as lucky as I am.
I think that had you told me a few years ago that I would
be discussing something so personal in public, something so
intimate as this, I would have cringed.
In 1992 I was diagnosed with breast cancer. My treatment
was a modified radical mastectomy with no lymph gland
involvement and I had reconstruction on the table * * *
followed by a 6-month course of chemotherapy.
Five years away from surgery and chemotherapy, and
breathing a little easier, I am really examining what caused my
cancer. I didn't smoke or drink. I exercised and always ate
fruits and vegetables. Was it in my vegetables from the
enormous amounts of pesticides sprayed on our crops? Was it in
the polluted air that I breathe when I go running? Was it in
the water I drank, from the estrogen mimicking hormones from
plastics?
I understand that the government has spent more than a
quarter billion dollars, since the official War on Cancer
began, under President Nixon. Some two decades into this War,
we still do not have a cure for the most common forms of the
disease. In addition, scientists can't tell us why cancer
continues to strike in children, why more and more women are
diagnosed with breast cancer, and why more young men are
acquiring testicular cancer.
Of course, we need to allocate more money to cancer
research. And we do need more effective treatments for the one
and a half million people who will be diagnosed this year. But,
we must be careful to insist that a large part of whatever new
monies are allocated be spent on figuring out how to prevent
this disease.
It is clear that doctors don't know why most women get
breast cancer. Like me, they have none of the known risks for
the disease. Inherited genetic defects only account for about 1
in 10 cases. Experts can only explain about 25 percent of the
cases.
Since 1971, scientists have known that cancer is caused by
a change in genes which controls cell growth. But my question
is, what causes this gene to mutate in the first place? What
triggers it? I believe we need to be looking for the causes in
our environment. We know for a fact that smoking can cause lung
cancer. We need to spend research money finding links in our
daily lives.
There are two key environmental problems that may be linked
to breast cancer. First, radiation--everything from nuclear
fallout to routine x rays and secondly, carcinogens found in
pesticides, fuels, plastics and even some therapeutic drugs. We
simply must find funds for the research that will give us the
answers to these life and death questions.
I was relatively young when I was diagnosed. And a
mammogram missed my tumor. We all have to remember that
mammograms, even when done properly and in the best
institutions, simply can not prevent breast cancer--and for
women like me, mammograms can miss tumors like they missed
mine.
I am first a mother, a survivor and a woman who cares for
the planet so very much and we are poisoning ourselves and our
earth. There is recent evidence in animals and wildlife that
indicates that a number of widely used pesticides, fuels,
plastics, and drugs, can disturb the body's hormones. These
disturbances could also be key to hormonal cancers.
Despite the obvious importance of hormone disrupting
materials, the federal government has spent relatively modest
amounts of money on this issue. Not only must more money be
allocated to cancer over all, but this additional money must be
spent on efforts to understand the causes of and to prevent the
disease.
As a mother, I am deeply concerned that we are failing to
protect our children. My dear friends Nancy and Jim Chuda lost
their precious daughter, Collete, at age 5 to Wilm's tumor.
This is a cancer that has been shown to be increased in
children whose parents have had workplace exposure to some
pesticides. Because of this personal experience I have been
involved in CHEC, (Children's Health & Environmental Coalition)
a national movement on behalf of children's environmental
health.
I am not a scientist, I am a concerned mother and citizen
and the main reason I am here is to say that we need to spend
whatever it takes to stop cancer and I know that with
additional support from the government and the private sector
we can all make this happen so that when my daughter looks at
me and says ``Mummy am I going to get breast cancer?'' I can
say ``no.''
