Primary prevention protects public health.

It is widely accepted that epidemiological data provide the only reliable evidence of a carcinogenic effect in humans, but epidemiology is unable to provide early warning of a cancer risk. The experimental approach to carcinogenicity can ascertain and predict potential cancer risks to humans in time for primary prevention to be successful. Unfortunately, only in rare instances were experimental data considered sufficiently convincing per se to stimulate the adoption of preventive measures. The experimental testing of environmental agents is the second line of defense against potential human carcinogens. The first line is the testing of synthesized agents, be these pesticides, medical drugs, or industrial chemical/physical agents, at the time of their development. We do not know, however, how many substances have been prevented from entering the environment because most tests are carried out by commercial or private laboratories and results are rarely released. A better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the sequence of events of the carcinogenesis process will eventually lead to a more accurate characterization and quantification of risks. However, the ways that mechanistic data have been used lately for evaluating evidence of carcinogenicity have not necessarily meant that the evaluations were more closely oriented toward public health. A tendency has surfaced to dismiss the relevance of long-term carcinogenicity studies. In the absence of absolute certainty, rarely if ever reached in biology, it is essential to adopt an attitude of responsible caution, in line with the principles of primary prevention, the only one that may prevent unlimited experimentation on the entire human species.