Cancer Sucks, Pink is Profitable, and Cures are Magically Blameless
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 Last week, I started following a twitter account called @Reduce_Risk, a Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation campaign focused on helping women reduce their breast cancer risk. Looking back through their tweets, I found one that said:
80% of Canadian women are at "average risk of #breastcancer. Do u know what that means? Learn more: ow.ly/8pA4L
I clicked on the link and read the information, which detailed the factors that lead to average risk and high risk of breast cancer. I responded to the tweet, saying "You talk about average and high risk -- does that mean no one is low risk?". They replied:
Thanks @phdinparenting. Average risk is the "lowest" level of risk but it still means a 1 in 9 or 11% lifetime risk of breast cancer!...
This is when I began to panic.
Yes, survival rates are increasing (due to early detection), but ultimately very little has changed over the years in the way breast cancer is treated. We still take a "slash, burn and poison" approach to treating the disease and we still don't know what causes this disease. There is a lot of inconclusive research that suggests what the risk factors might be, but we don't truly know what causes it.
That is a scary prospect and fear is a big motivator.
I have run for the cure, I've donated for the cure, and I've decorated pink panther birthday cakes with pink M&Ms for the cure. I've jumped on board for too many pink ribbon campaigns without first questioning them.Was it fear motivating me? Or hope? Or wanting to feel like I was making a difference?
I'm not sure.
While some campaigns seem obviously wrong (Kentucky Fried Chicken for the Cure), I must admit that I haven't always questioned pink washing as carefully as I should in the past. That all changed when I saw the new documentary film Pink Ribbons Inc.
Take a moment and watch the trailer:
"Raising money has become the priority, regardless of the consequences"
This quote from the film truly is the message that comes through loud and clear. At best, companies are using this disease as a way to profit. But it gets worse, much worse than that. There are companies that are selling products with known carcinogens and slapping a pink ribbon on them. They rake in profits, give a very small amount of money to research for the cure, and continue with business as usual. Except when they are exposed.
One example given in the movie is the Yoplait pink-lid campaign. In Ecouterre's 10 ridiculous pinkwashed products that may increase your risk of breast cancer, they explain the problem with this campaign:
For every pink yogurt lid you send in until December 31, Yoplait will donate 10 cents to Susan G. Komen for the Cure until it reaches $2 million. Simple, right? Except that it costs 44 cents just to buy each stamp, not to mention the fact you'll need to down 100 yogurt cups for a middling $10 contribution. But fuzzy math aside, until recently, Yoplait also contained rbGH (or recombinant bovine growth hormone), a synthetic hormone with unresolved questions about its impact on human health, including cancer.
The rbGH was only removed after Yoplait was called out by the breast cancer community. The suggestion in the film -- don't bother with the yoghurt. If you truly want to help, make a direct donation rather than wasting your money on stamps to send in lids that are worth pennies.
This film clip called Eli Lilly is Milking Cancer is one of the other stories shared in the movie that shows how disgustingly self-serving corporate interests can be.
Mainstream Breast Cancer Organizations Fear Alienating Supporters
Everyone wants a cure, of course. But the reason so many of these big corporate interests are focused on a cure is that it is blameless. Focusing on prevention, however, can have dire consequences for corporate interests. If more research goes into prevention, and it turns out that the products they are selling are causing cancer, it will hurt their bottom line. A focus on the cure is much easier. By not drawing too much attention to nasty carcinogens, cancer organizations like the Komen Foundation can keep raking in the cash.
As if that wasn't enough, this week the Komen Foundation proved just how important it is to keep your supporters on board. The organization succumbed to political pressure from right-wing anti-abortion supporters and pulled it support of breast cancer screening services (mammograms and clinical breast exams) at Planned Parenthood.
But in their attempts to keep corporate sponsors and other donors on board, are breast cancer organizations alienating the very women they are supposed to be supporting?
The focus on all things pink and beautiful may be a great way to keep corporate sponsors on board, it doesn't resonate with all breast cancer patients and survivors. "We're human beings, not a pink ribbon," one of the women interviewed in the film noted. Women with breast cancer feel pressured by the positive energy around breast cancer campaigns -- "the tyranny of cheerfulness". Breast cancer is not pretty or normal and many women resent the attempt to present it that way.
One of the key messages in breast cancer campaigns is around the fight. The message that women get is that if they fight hard enough, they will beat the disease. But what does that say about those who do not survive? Did they not fight hard enough? Not pray hard enough? Were they not pink and cheerful enough? There are evidently some breast cancer survivors who can relate to the wave of pink and take some comfort in it and strength from it. But there are just as many that resent it.
A shift in focus?
The bulk of breast cancer research money in past years has gone into researching a cure. In the movie, they note that only 3 to 5 percent of funds go towards prevention of breast cancer. In Canada, around 6.5 percent of money raised goes towards research into risk factors and risk reduction. Why is the number so low?
- Is it because the prospect of a cure generates hope and therefore attracts more research dollars?
- Is it because the focus on the cure doesn't upset any corporate sponsors that may be contributing to the cause?
- Is it because preventing cancer may dry up the enormous cash cow that pink ribbon campaigns have become?
In an interview with CBC's The Current, Sandra Palmaro, CEO of the Ontario region of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation said that they need to find a balance between looking for opportunities to increase funding and ensuring that they work with companies whose beliefs and aims are aligned with theirs. When asked specifically about partnerships with organizations that are selling pink ribbon products that contain known carcinogens, she noted that "we don't know what quantity of a product over what period of time" would contribute toward cancer and used that as a justification for working with those companies.
But if we truly don't know how harmful those products can be, wouldn't that at least be cause for being cautious instead of encouraging people to go out and buy more of the product? Can we shift our focus a bit from cure, cure, cure to a good dose of research into understanding the cause and preventing the disease?
I'd like to see us come around to a place where there truly can be a "low risk" of breast cancer. The work that the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation is doing now on Reducing the Risk is a start, but we need so much more.
Go See Pink Ribbons, Inc.
I knew about pink washing before I saw this movie, but I didn't know just how bad it was. I had to pick my chin up off the floor several times listening to the words of executives from Estee Lauder, Revelon and the Komen Foundation. I had to wipe tears away listening to the words of women with stage four breast cancer.
Ravida Din, the producer of Pink Ribbons Inc. wrote:
I hope that by seeing this film, audiences will engage in a bigger social debate around the issue. The public - especially those who are involved in fundraising for this cause – may want to ask more questions next time they hand over their hard earned dollars and their time to pink ribbon causes. We need to critically think about how we can become more effective as a society in addressing this epidemic of cancer. Let’s re-envision the kind of public platform we want to create and how we as a civil society want to determine how we manage our health.
That is a message I can get behind. As you know, I'm not one to shy away from social debate or talking about re-envisioning the future. In addition to seeing this movie, I'll be following an organization called Breast Cancer Action more closely as their message and priorities seem more aligned with mine than the pink ribbon campaigns.
The movie Pink Ribbons Inc. will be in theatres in Canada starting on February 3, 2012 at the following theatres and more:
Barrie Imperial Theatres / Calgary The Plaza / Concord AMC Interchange / Edmonton Metro Cinema / Grand Praire Jan Cinema /Halifax Empire 17 Bayers Lake / Kamloops – February date (tba) Paramount / Kelowna – Feb 10 Paramount Theatre / Kingston The Screening Room / Laval Megaplex Pont-Viau /Medicine Hat The Monarch / Montreal AMC Forum, Quartier Latin / Nanaimo – Feb 10 Avalon / Oakville AMC Winston Churchill / Orleans Feb 24 Mayfair /Ottawa – Feb 17 Bytowne / Québec City Le Clap / Regina RPL Theatre /Saskatoon Roxy / Scarborough AMC Kennedy Commons/ Sherbrooke Maison du cinéma /Sudbury Rainbow / Ste-Adèle Cinéma Pine / Toronto AMC Yonge & Dundas, The Carlton, The Kingsway/ Vancouver Denman / Victoria Roxy / Waterloo Princess Cinema /Winnipeg Globe Cinema / with more to come…
In the United States, the film will be shown at a variety of film festivals from January to April 2012, with more dates and showings beginning in early Spring.
Update:
- The film can be downloaded here: http://www.nfb.ca/film/pink_ribbons_inc/download/ $14.95 in HD/$9.95 in SD
- The film can be rented for 48 hours here: http://www.nfb.ca/film/pink_ribbons_inc/rental $2.95/48 hour rental
- The trailer is available here: http://www.nfb.ca/film/pink_ribbons_inc_trailer/
How do you feel about pink washing? How has it impacted the way that you look at breast cancer organizations? Do you plan to see the movie to learn more?
Photo credit: National Film Board of Canada
Reader Comments (70)
Still another issue: a number of studies have shown mammograms to be ineffective in reducing breast cancer rates, ineffective in screening at all in premenopausal women, but yet millions upon billions of dollars go into them every year. Frankly, I'm scared NOT to get a mammogram, even with evidence that they do nothing, because this huge machine with it's huge agenda might be right - how would we tell if it isn't?
We're focusing on an awful lot of extremely expensive and invasive methods to detect cancer (mammography, biopsy, etc.) that are so frustrating that they often make women ignore signs of cancer when they appear. I think medical science can do better.
i sit here wanting to throw up.
pink used to be my favourite colour until my little sister got breast cancer last may.
no longer.
i was never a huge buy pink person. i have suported the pinking of things in the past because it was the cool thing to do.
until i really got to see breast cancer up close. or kind of up close.
it is scary and painful and exhausting and awful.
no amount of pink lipstick can change that.
not only that...what if these products have actually played into the cancer in the first place?
what then?
breast cancer has tricked it's way into my life through my beautiful sister. i am not going to be tricked again.
prevention is the key to changing the tide. a cure would be wonderful...but i think we will lose too many sisters in that race.
my sister found her own cancer. she will be one of the lucky ones.
but now i will spend my money on educating myself, and my daughter, learning what increases our risks and on the things that can change the chances of getting cancer in our lives...because maybe if that had been the focus all along, my sister would have found her cancer sooner. or maybe even her doctor would have. or maybe it could have been minimized. or...prevented? we will never know.
i am too angry about this to talk about it on the best of days. this just makes me so sad.
Are there any less "archaic" approaches utilized to treat any type of cancer? Seems to me your Aunt was well served, detection & removal within 2 weeks - a dream for many.
Hate to disagree, Diana, but Nicolette is entirely correct. Unfortunately you won't find support for this stance in the mainstream media. Diet choices do influence genetic EXPRESSION on all levels, including how prone a person is to getting cancer, diabetes and a host of other "civilized" diseases. It's not about "lifestyle", it's about putting poison into your body on a daily basis. And how that poison is promoted by the industry. And very few of us are aware of all the forms that poison can take. It includes meat, dairy, animal fat, any form of cooked food, artificial flavorings and colorings; any lotions, creams or deodorants you put on your skin, down to the glue the particle board furniture in your kid's bedroom is made of.
Diabetes can be reversed in 21 days using diet alone (watch the film on doctor Cousens, MD, Tree of Life foundation, AZ); numerous non mainstream doctors are curing their patients from even terminal cancers with (raw) diet and/or high doses of vitamin C. My father cured terminally ill cancer patients (the ones "sent home to die") using a no meat/fish/dairy/sugar/salt/fat/additives diet, with high doses of green clay, clay cataplasmas and vitamin C every two hours. Cancer gone in 3 to six months.
There are plenty of cures out there. The criminal act is in not distributing this information. The reasons for this are simple: corporate interests (big pharma, meat and dairy industry, biotech) control both the government and the media. You need only look at the list of highly placed government officials and the positions they hold or have held in big pharma, biotech or food industry to realize that what is going on is NOT in the best interests of the public. Do your own research people, and stop trusting what the media and indoctrinated doctors are telling you...
Oh you are right we don't know enough and aren't doing enough! I'm just saying that it's hard and it's expensive- this isn't a reason to not do more, but a clarification that even if we spent 95% of the money on prevention, we'd still have breast cancer around.
When I was in college, I had a work-study job for a Community Health professor. Her entire research was based on health disparities, and she had gradually focused on the difference in access to Hormone Replacement Therapy in black and hispanic populations compared to white populations. Then the Nurse's Health Study came out showing that the HRT that was being used was increasing breast cancer, and the whole bottom dropped out of her research.
To her credit, she began radically rethinking what research questions she needed to be asking, but it was obviously pretty stressful for her. It gave me an unfortunate reluctance to do prevention type research.
And I'm sure you remember the recent controversy when new mammogram guidelines came out. Even though the science is sound, people *hate* to be told "doing nothing" is a better option than something that *seems* like such a reasonable and sound 'no brainer' type of prevention.
The trouble is, people want to be told they are in control of their risk of cancer, because they are scared. And they are not. Not much, anyway, if you compare to the other factors.
Then I guess it's just a stroke of bad luck that my two cousins, aged 10 and 13 at the time, were left without a mother after a very short "battle" with liver cancer. A cancer that should have been found, originally, in her breast. A cancer that nearly went undiagnosed after she was sent home repeatedly because a woman of her age -40- who leads such an exemplary non-lifestyle -the one you described above- could never, in a million years, be sick, let alone have cancer. I guess the year was 1 000 000.
So what's the recipe to live cancer-free? Do everything non-mainstream doctors tell you to, and pray you were born under a lucky star?
Not so much on the subject of pinkwashing (which I detest) but more on risk factors, there is such thing as below-average risk. Things like physical activity, breastfeeding, and having your first child early (which I don't recommend purely for its protective qualities, but I'm not going to tell you how to live your life) are negative risk factors--they reduce your risk. If you were at average risk before you started doing those things, you'll be below average after you start doing them. I'm at way below-average risk for heart disease because my high HDL level is a negative risk factor.
Also: As mentioned in a few comments above, neither abortion nor miscarriage is linked with breast cancer, according to both the NCI and the ACS. Neither is mammography--while decades ago, mammograms used quite a bit of radiation, now they only use about as much as the average dental X ray, and less than the average chest X ray. Mammography facilities are required to be accredited and certified and to undergo annual FDA inspection and auditing to make sure safe practices are being maintained.
It's hardly a recipe, Marie, it's common sense. Healthy living is based on making healthy choices. Food choices and thought choices, too, now that I see you reply.
My point was just that feeding someone "dead" calories, grown, packaged, flavored and colored by uncaring and polluting industries intent only on making more money, does not have the same effect on a person's energy as eating fresh healthy produce lovingly grown from plants in their own garden, for instance. Check the research on biophotons from the Max Planck institute: a new born baby's average biophoton emission is 43,000, the same as an average vegetarian person. A person who regularly eats fast-food only emits about 1,000 biophotons, a person eating 100% raw 83,000 biophotons. Diet doesn't make a difference? All four equally likely to get cancer? I don't think so.
And doesn't it make a huge difference in emotional well-being whether you hate or love a person, whether you hate or love what you do? Dark field microscope experiments show a person's blood responds to the quality of their thoughts. Loving thoughts cause "light" particles to come into existence.
Food and thought have their effects on the body, and the effects are similar. Cooked food is seen as a harmful invasive substance by our bodies and is treated in the same way as the body would treat a harmful virus or bacteria
Anyway, I notice that you find it important to try and discredit something that has global truth and that merits being known to everyone. You do this by making it into something about you/your family. Because - for whatever personal reasons - you need to hang on to the story that the death of that family member was grossly unfair. My comment somehow triggered your anger.
As far as I can see it, that family member would be the only reliable source of information about how well she did or did not lead the "exemplary non life-style" such as I apparently describe, so forgive me if I don't go into this part of the discussion.
So, back to the anger. There is no choice that you can make out there that does not have an effect on your being. If you let poisonous emotions cloud your better judgment, if you let toxic anger determine your actions, and that includes discrediting things you haven' thoroughly investigated, then you are in for an equally harmful backlash from the universe. Or "As you sow so shall you reap", if you prefer the Christian version.
How long do you want to continue carrying that anger around Marie? How much longer do you want it to affect you and the people you love? It doesn't affect me, I'm not part of your circle, you're only harming yourself and your environment...
There are other ways to live than yours, and some of them are more satisfying. Perhaps you will be tempted to try one day...
So, peace, love and light to you, Marie.
With regards to the level of radiation at the dentist or with a chest x ray, the effects of radiation, as I understand it, are cumulative. The more you have in your lifetime, the more damage is done.
I guess I'm more cynical than most. A large corporation doing something altruistic without an ulterior motive? Please!
On the subject of giving, there is a non-profit called Give Well that reviews charities, evaluates if what they're doing is effective, and shows exactly how much of your donated dollar goes to helping and how much goes to overhead costs. They recommend about 1% of the charities they review. And unfortunately many of the large humanitarian organizations you're probably familiar with don't even keep detailed enough records to be able to give you this kind of information.
http://givewell.org/
As far as risk factors go, I don't think we should get divided by a genetic versus environmental debate, since the answer is often both. However, you have control over some of the environmental factors like diet, personal care products, and the items you bring into your home. I recently started learning about all the carcinogens and hormone disruptors in personal care products and home furnishings. Although I don't always agree where they put their funding, The Environmental Working Group has a wealth of information on the toxic chemicals in our food, water, environment, and products.
http://www.ewg.org/
There are some good companies out there that have a philosophy as well as a bottom line, but they are the exception and not the rule. In short, be skeptical and do research because you are your best advocate.
A few things:
a) I am not angry over my aunt's death. Nor do I think it was unfair. If my comment came accross as angry, it was unintentional.
b) I did not try to discredit what you assume I have not thorougly investigated: I was merely pointing out, using my aunt as an example, that our lifestyle choices, however virtuous, may not safeguard us from, well, life.
c) As a means of discrediting yourself and what you are trying to preach, the judgement you make of my life, the way I live and how it's unsatisfying, it goes a long way. I doubt being on a diet of love and raw food gives anyone such an insight into anyone's life based on a short paragraph in the comment section of a blog.
d) Again, this was not written in anger.
And I apologize, Annie, for the parallel conversation.
I have walked the Weekend to End Women's Cancer walk in Toronto the past 2 years. I love the walk and meeting survivors and their families. I love hearing their stories and how brave they are. I HATE all the freebies from companies that have cancer causing agents in their products. I HATE that Shoppers Drug Mart is the key sponsor. I chose to not take most of the freebies unless they were from a company I supported. I get that they need sponsors to make the event as cheap to the foundation as possible but there just has to be another way.
thank you for this post. more people need to be made aware of this. my mom is stage 4 breast currently after being remission for 7 years. and yes, i fully agree, cancer sucks, whether breast cancer (my mom), ovarian (both my aunts), lung (my grandmother), esophogeal (my grandfather), or ewing's sarcoma (my cousin).
new reader to your blog and can't wait to read more!
[...] support early detection of breast cancer. The third, wearing a pink ribbon, I have issues with, because of all the pink washing that takes place. So, I opted for "write your own pledge" and typed in: I pledge to battle pink washing, [...]
[...] support early detection of breast cancer. The third, wearing a pink ribbon, I have issues with, because of all the pink washing that takes place. So, I opted for “write your own pledge” and typed in: I pledge to battle pink [...]
The single biggest killer to women (men as well) is Lung Cancer!!!! Lung Cancer kills more women annually then all female cancers combined. the survival rate has virtually stayed the same (13%) since the "War on Cancer" was declared in the 70's. Yet it remains to be the least funded, privately & government.. For every BC death there is approx. $47,000 in funding..LC, $1300 in funding. BC survival rates have increased to nearly 90% if detected early..We have preventative screening available for all women, yet LC has none.
After losing my mother to this cancer FRAUD in 1996 and my father to the tobacco lies and smoking which causes lung cancer, I started to read books on natural cures and research the truth intensely. After over 8 years of non stop research, I have discovered the truths and lies about cancer, breast cancer and all other diseases combined! The natural cures have been with us all along, they have just been suppressed by the Big Pharma drug industry and their insatiable need for Bigger PROFIT$! They are literally creating new and stronger machines and diseases with misinformation and newer cancer causing chemical drug's so they can increase profit shares in their drug companies. After watching Pink Ribbons Inc., I went on the attack on facebook to EXPOSE this ongoing mass merchandising of FRAUD and DEATH for PROFIT$! Find me here https://www.facebook.com/Johndrake001 I EXPOSE the lies daily!
"lifestyle" contributes but there are other factors
lost a friend that was a vegan, organic eater - she still developed and died from Breast Cancer. She was a fighter, they told her her cancer would metastisise in 3 years but she took 5. It was only in her last year that she started buying and enjoying expensive scotch and such cause she knew she was dying and wanted a few more good moments.
WE can lower our risk of cancer by eating clean and excersising but we cannot elminiate it
[...] Cancer sucks and the destruction of our environment is horrible and can’t be turned back. Pink ribbons and turning off our lights for an hour on Earth Day isn’t going to fix the problem. Holding [...]
This is really interesting. I hate the overdose of pink marketing and merchandizing (and I love pink). Still, I participated in the CIBC Run for the Cure on Sunday. It was a Pinkapalooza and I found it uplifting and heartening because it was meaningful for a beloved friend who has breast cancer.
As a team of walkers, participation was our way of showing and saying, “We love you. We want to support you.” Pink City aside, I saw this particular fundraiser as a large, diverse group of people showing their creative spirit to show their love and care for others.
But the vulture-like corporate feeding on such charitable causes? It’s pretty reprehensible – and not just pink. The charity/non-profit sector is awash in corporate fundraising these days. It’s big business. Charitable? Benevolent? I have serious doubts.
I also know, all too well, what it's like to deal with the sort of cancer that doesn't get the attention or the research or the fundraising campaigns.
Cancer does suck. It’s not pink. People do get offended by the notion of others “fighting” cancer -- as though the ones who die didn’t fight hard enough. On the other hand, the pink ribbon or the yellow wristband does mean somebody’s paying attention and somebody cares.