Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Is Breast Cancer Awareness a Marketing Sham?

By Lucinda Marshall, AlterNet. Posted January 23, 2007.


Breast cancer is the only disease we try to eradicate by going shopping. But does all that thinking pink really contribute to "The Cure"?
Advertisement

[An earlier version of this piece appeared in In These Times]

After 24 years of shocking pink ribbons, it has become impossible not to be aware of breast cancer. But does all that thinking pink really contribute to "The Cure," or is it actually designed to keep us from seeing red?

Breast cancer is clearly the poster child disease for cause marketing. It doesn't kill as many women as lung cancer or heart disease, but breast cancer attacks the most visible symbol of female sexuality, and as the porn industry has amply proven, sex sells.

There is no other disease that we try to eradicate by going shopping. We are bombarded with all manner of wonderful pink things we can buy to raise money to help fight breast cancer. Everything from makeup to a line of clothing from the Ford Motor Company. Never mind that the makeup contains ingredients linked to cancer and auto exhaust contains known carcinogens, it's all for a good cause.

But in the opinion of Jaynse Ashley, who has undergone three surgeries for breast cancer, "We don't see little penis trinkets being sold to 'support prostrate cancer awareness,' now do we? I cannot adequately articulate how disgusting I find the marketing of trinkets, appliances, etc. on the backs of those of us in this battle. The contribution percentage is negligible compared to mark-up on the product. How dare they use women in this battle to line their pockets? There will be a reckoning and I hope I live to see it."

Much of the information that is spewed out in the name of awareness focuses on personal risk factors that we can't change, such as genetics and family history. The American Cancer Society (ACS) devotes its entire explanation about what causes breast cancer to genetic factors, despite the fact that by their own admission, only 5-10 percent of breast cancer is hereditary.

Only one paragraph in their discussion of risk factors is devoted to environmental pollutants, which it terms an unproven connection. Yet according to Breast Cancer Action (BCA), there are over 100,000 synthetic chemicals in use in the U.S., more than 90 percent of which have never been tested for their impact on people.

A new study by the World Wildlife Fund links pollutants to breast cancer because of what researcher Andreas Kortenkamp calls a "cocktail effect" of exposure to multiple chemicals that mimic estrogenic effects. In light of recent research that suggests a link between the recent dramatic drop in breast cancer rates and the decreased use of hormone therapy, it is urgently important to continue research into these effects.

As BCA points out in State of the Evidence 2006, "Considerable resources continue to be spent to encourage women to make changes in their personal lives that might reduce their risk of breast cancer. But many factors that contribute to the disease lied far beyond an individual's personal control and can only be addressed by government policy and private sector changes."

BCA urges the use of the precautionary principle in addressing the dangers of pollutants where an "indication of harm, rather than definitive proof of harm, triggers policy actions."

Yet despite all the ribbons and races, instead of a cure, we are left with many unanswered questions, not just about what causes cancer but also how we detect and treat it. Almost 10 percent of breast cancer deaths worldwide are in the U.S. despite our aggressive detection and treatment protocols. Women are advised by organizations such as the American Cancer Society and the Komen Foundation to get annual mammograms starting at the age of 40.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: breast cancer

Lucinda Marshall is a feminist artist, writer and activist. She is the founder of the Feminist Peace Network. Her work has been published in numerous publications in the United States and abroad, including Counterpunch, In These Times, Dissident Voice, Off Our Backs, The Progressive, Countercurrents, Z Magazine , Common Dreams and Information Clearinghouse. She blogs at WIMN Online and at Sheroes.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Money? No way
Posted by: ryazbeck on Jan 23, 2007 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, another scheme to make a few people richer, big surprise!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Money? No way Posted by: Phenix
What ever happened to "Better safe than sorry"?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 23, 2007 12:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe it's just my age, because I live in a senior park, and the fellow residents dying of or fighting breast cancer, while not wide-spread, is noticeable, even to me, since as a male I don't talk to that many of the other sex about their disabilities.

Yes, we know that the number of deaths and injuries from maltreatment across the board is alarming. So how about a comparison of the maltreatment for breast cancer compared to, for instance, prostate cancer?

Or is it that you just don't like pink, so you want to ban the color? Or dream of writing a big expose someday?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

yep, it's because it's SEXY
Posted by: deborama on Jan 23, 2007 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always thought breast cancer received way too much attention because it's got the word BREAST in it and therefore it's a disease that makes people think of sex. In this tit-obsessed country, women are terrified of losing the outward symbols of their sexuality and therefore their femininity and therefore their identity.

As a 47-year-old woman who's never worn a bra because I don't need one with my AAA chest, I couldn't care less if I had to have a mastectomy. No one would notice. My breasts have already served their purpose, which was to feed my children (and they did that well, despite their minisculeness).

I'd much rather lose my breasts than a limb, my hearing, my eyesight or my mind. Women have been terrorized into thinking if they get breast cancer they will cease being women (i.e. cease being attractive to men, which is of course the be-all, end-all of our existence). I say let's turn the focus onto other medical problems that are much more common and much more worrisome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: yep, it's because it's SEXY Posted by: ladyoracle
» RE: yep, it's because it's SEXY Posted by: DB in Canada
» double-mastectomy porn? Posted by: MartianBachelor
Breast Cancer is Multifactoral
Posted by: drricklippin on Jan 23, 2007 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Breast cancer is a set of multifactoral diseases While young women tragically get and die from breast cancer aging is the most important risk factor.

THe myth perpetrated by the cancer "cure" research community is that we will cure all cancers including breast cancer. We will not. So I object to "race for the cure " lexicon.

We wil "chip away" at all cancers including breast cancer.

As far as marketing products to stimulate raising $ I have no personal objections. But $ should go to cause, early detection AND CARE as well as "cure"

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

prevention, not treatment: not of interest of cancer industry
Posted by: Shelterbay2006 on Jan 23, 2007 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The cancer industry drives me nuts! This whole Walk for the Cure, pink ribbon business is just a circus act. I know it's helpful for those or their loved ones who are fighting cancer, but it's just a diversion.
Americans would rather take a pill, run to the doctor, fight an illness, then do the right things in the first place to prevent cancer. We've know for decades the major causes of cancer and yet where is the outcry to shut down these industries and behaviors? Young people think their immortal, older people think it's too late.
Will I dodge the bullet? Maybe, maybe not, but every year I clean up my act a little more, eat a little better, exercise a little more, etc.
So, no, I don't buy pink ribbon marketing crap; most of it is useless consumer junk any thinking person would buy regardless of the color it's marketed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» cancer industry Posted by: off-the-radar 2
prevention is overrated
Posted by: DB in Canada on Jan 23, 2007 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are always talking about prevention of breast cancer, as if it's a simple thing.

I have breast cancer. And yet I was very healthy in every respect. I was a vegetarian and rode my bike or walked everywhere I went. In fact, I was known among my friends for my love of fruits and vegetables and for my physical fitness. I even particularly loved broccoli and brussel sprouts, which are constantly recommended as if they are some kind of miracle foods.

Since I was diagnosed, I have met many women with this disease. They are totally representative of our society and in no way fatter, more sedentary etc. than other women who do not have breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a very complex disease. And it is not one disease but several.

I actually suspect that the birth control pill is playing a much larger part in the incidence of breast cancer than we are being told by our doctors.

I am frankly tired of hearing people talking about "cleaning up their act" etc. Yes, do take care of your health. But try to avoid being self-righteous or certain about your future. You simply do not know what will happen to you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bravo! Posted by: ladyoracle
» RE: prevention is overrated Posted by: VannaLaRoche
Creeping Normalcy in the afterglow of the halo effect.
Posted by: bachelortimes on Jan 23, 2007 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We always have to remember which started first, the cancer, the support for the cure, or the Public Relations specialists who thought it would be a good idea to advertise in a way that would mislead people into believing that the only way to contribute to cancer research is through "buying our product."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Breast Cancer Kills
Posted by: ladyoracle on Jan 23, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the writer of this article forget that fact? Maybe it's not the #1 killer of women, but it kills both women and men. I think the pink ribbon campaing's greatest flaw is that it renders male sufferes invisible.

Last year I participated in a Komen race, and in fundraising amongst my friends and co-workers, everyone who donated on my behalf had a story of a relative, friend, or themselves fighting breast cancer. Some survived multiple attacks, others died because of late diagnosis. And you should have seen the pride in the breast cancer survivors at the race.

Of course "pink ribbon" is a marketing scheme, and I don't blame survivors who get sick of it. But you can interview many more who enjoy the opportunity to make thier battles public and who see others' pink ribbons as a member of the military sees a waving patriotic flag. Encouragement.

And as far as the statistics about whether mammograms are needed,...well, sure there are false positives, and we have other options bsides mammograms that are proven to be better and more comfortable for early detection. But BC is a problem that, particularly if not caught early, WILL BE FATAL, and yes, I think 200 women's anxieties are worth one woman's proper detection and treatment. The mentality exhibited about that in this article is not unlike big business when evaluating risk factors with pollution, in which few deaths of the elderly or very young are worth the conveneince to the larger group. Scary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Breast Cancer Kills Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Breast Cancer Kills Posted by: VannaLaRoche
Prevention goes against Corporate America's self-interest ideology. Go figure.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 23, 2007 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those pink ribbons are just a simple way of saying "Please judge a book by its cover, not its contents."

Thanks for exposing the pink ribbon scam. It's just as bad as the yellow ribbon one just as I had suspected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

of course..
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 23, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course they want to cure you by having you shop... supporting the economy that underwrites industrialism.. the very thing causing much of our cancer and other diseases with its polution.

www.greenanarchy.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prostrate Cancer?
Posted by: MAD on Jan 23, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We don't see little penis trinkets being sold to 'support prostrate cancer awareness,' now do we?"

Would that be cancer of the ankles, knees, wrists and elbows? But seriously, prostate cancer should be given more attention. After all, 1 in 6 men will be diagnosed with that potentially life threatening form of cancer and its treatment often results in impotence. Given how penis (and breast) obsessed our societies are, I am rather surprised that it has not garnered more attention.

As per the breast cancer marketing sham:
AstraZeneca - It's amazing how that one word changes the whole dynamic of any discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Prostrate Cancer? Posted by: hbw
» My uncle... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Prostrate Cancer? Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Prostrate Cancer? Posted by: Durga_is_my_homey
I'm just one person
Posted by: mysticalrae on Jan 23, 2007 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but my family history is rife with breast cancer. My great-grandmother had it, and my grandmother died from it over 40 years ago. My mother died from breast cancer five years ago. In the interim - more women died from the disease in this country during the Viet Nam war than US soldiers fighting a war.

This is an ongoing epidemic, and I don't see that the American Cancer Society, who is the primary recipient of all the funds collected to 'fight cancer' by research has come up with anything different in the way of prevention or treatment in this 40 year span of time. My mother was offered the same treatment as had been offered my grandmother. Where's the progress? Look at the scope of technological advances in other areas in the past 20 years, and yet breast cancer victims are treated, (and this is from my own experience, not statistically speaking), with the same technology that was available 40 years ago.

I have spoken to various doctors, experts, and alternitive practitioners over the years about this disease, and my 'genetic' predisposition to getting it. My own personal findings produced less than acceptable data as to the understanding and information that is available about the incidence and treatment of breast cancer. The holistic view comes to the forefront in terms of information, and also in terms of prevention.

The media frenzy for breast cancer awareness gives us no new information whatsoever about the disease, just more of the same old stuff that didn't work 40 years ago, doesn't work now, and in all probability won't work in the future. I don't do the 'pink', because in my mind the monies involved aren't actually producing anything different, so why throw good money after bad. What is in your conscious thought process tends to manifest in your body, especially when it is presented with fear as its basis, which is the forte of American media. And when there is very little mention of the toxicicity of foods, water, and environment playing a part in this disease, the information offered loses validity for me.

My 69 year old mother refused chemotherapy, took herbs and suppliments, and implemented a simple basic diet after she was diagnosed. She was happy, predominantly healthy, and virtually pain-free for all except about six months. She died peacefully at home, just a month before her 80th birthday.

Its time for women to step up and take responsibility for their own health, instead of leaving it up to the corporations, one of which is the American Cancer Society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm just one person Posted by: yolanda
How about a Breast Cancer Awareness Sale...?
Posted by: fearlessmanateehunter on Jan 23, 2007 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah....! That's the ticket.... Why not...?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All Cancer is Genetic
Posted by: sleigh on Jan 23, 2007 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's fine to criticize the ACS for taking pharma money. But the reporter is incorrect to criticize their info on what causes cancer. The ACS is right to focus on genes because all cancer is genetic. That is not the same as saying it's hereditary. There are some genetic mutations that are inherited that increase breast cancer risk (BRCA1 and BRCA2, for example). But most breast cancers contain genetic mutations that were not inherited but, instead, developed over a person's life. These genetic mutations help transform a normal cell into a cancer cell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most cancers are actually due to industial & agricultural carcinogens
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 23, 2007 12:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first recognized evidence of chemically-induced cancer was in the cases of scrotal cancer in young boys employeed as chimney sweeps in the Victorian era. There have been endless documented cases of cancer brought on by exposure to various petrochemical, herbicides, industrial solvents, and pharmaceutical drugs - for a modern introduction, read Sandra Steingraber, "Living Downstream", 1997.

Of course, the petrochemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry and agribusiness concerns like Monsanto all have a vested interest in keeping this information from the public. The corporate media, who get's much of their advertising from these industries, as well as being partially owned by the same industrial concerns, plays right along with this.

Consider the current news flash on 'declining number of cancer deaths'; for example the Washington Post: "Cancer Deaths Decline For Second Straight Year: Fewer Smokers, More Screening Credited" They, along with George W. Bush, are cheering about a tiny 0.53% decrease - a statistical blip.

The actual statistics are that "more than 1.4 million Americans will still find out they have a form of the disease this year, and 560,000 will die" - and the media is crowing over the fact that "More than 3,000 fewer Americans died from cancer in 2004 than in 2003"... and yes, that's a 0.53% decline - surely cause for celebratory headlines, don't you think? THe truth is that we are in the midst of a cancer epidemic, and the chemical industry is desperate to avoid blame. Yet, you have Linda Pickle of the National Cancer Institute saying, "There's a lot of good news in this report."

The Washington Post article glaringly avoids any mention of the environmental (i.e. industrial/ petrochemical/ pesticide/ herbicide) causes of cancer - not a word!

The industry also supports all the National Cancer Foundations for a very specific reason: to make sure that they don't start supporting the link between environmental exposure to industrial and agricultural chemicals (everything from vinyl chloride to fossil fuel residues to poorly tested drugs), and instead focus on "finding a cure to this strictly genetic problem".

It's true that genetics are involved, but the fact is that these environmental pollutants often induce cancers by causing mutations in gene sequences that cause cells to go haywire; certain people may be more genetically susceptible to a given toxin then others (people's livers differ in their effectiveness when it comes to excreting specific toxins, for example). However, by claiming that "all cancers are genetic" the chemical industry foists the blame onto the cancer vicitim and off itself.

This is the real reason that you hear so much about genetic causes of cancer in the corporate media, and also why the chemical industry-funded cancer foundations don't like to talk about the environmental causes of cancer - and the fact that the pharmaceutical/ health supplement industry makes huge profits off selling cancer victims drugs is just incidental - they've discovered a market that will buy anything from shark cartiledge (the health supplement industry) to the latest pharmaceutical cure.

An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure - i.e. eat organic, and don't use industrial chemicals and industrial pesticides in your home, and don't work in polluting industries - and make sure that your water supply isn't contaminated with benzene or trichloroethylene or vinyl chloride or jet fuel residue or MTBE or hydrazine (a la Erin Brokovitch).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Balanced act
Posted by: Brucewxx on Jan 23, 2007 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I donated my money directly to those orgasnizations who do cancer researches and I do not buy products just because their manufacturers or sellers donated a (small) portion of the profit to those causes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cancer rates among men and women . . .
Posted by: JCR on Jan 23, 2007 3:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the MAYO clinic and other esteemed sources, nearly 1/3 of all women and 1/2 of all men are likely to develop cancer in their lifetimes. Can any of our learned medical practitioners corroborate this? This figure just seems extremely elevated to me but it may just be a manipulation of statistics as scare tactic. Anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just for the record
Posted by: marykane on Jan 23, 2007 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm an "Avon Lady" and I just wanted y'all to know that when Avon sells a product to raise money for Breast Cancer, a minimum of 80% of the item's price goes to Breast Cancer research and patient assistance. (L'Oreal, for comparison, donates 10%.) We Representatives make NO money off of these sales and we don't even get "Award Dollars" for them. Avon keeps only enough to cover the cost of making the items.

The money goes to the Avon Foundation which not only supports research and prevention but also gives "scholarships" to women who cannot afford their treatment.

Why buy something instead of just making a donation? It's like donating to the Red Cross and getting a T-shirt. People like to show what they supported and maybe get a few kudos for it. That's just human nature.

BTW, I lost an aunt to breast cancer, I'm at risk for it myself, and there have been more women in my church than I can even remember who have fought this battle. If I have to sell a bracelet with a pink ribbon strung through it to help, I will!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just for the record Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Just for the record Posted by: saveusall
I LIKE PINK AND OTHER COLORS IN MY LIFE
Posted by: drricklippin on Jan 23, 2007 3:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to trivialize an important issue like breast cancer ( see my post above about this tragic disease) but I happen to like color in my life

You should see what turns pink in Philadephia, Pa, for example, during breast cancer awareness month. From pink water in historic fountains to pink lighting on downtown buildings.

It's indeed a site to behold. Overdone? I don't know? as long as $ flows to where it does the most good for the most people

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Movember
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Jan 23, 2007 3:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
""We don't see little penis trinkets being sold to 'support prostrate cancer awareness,' now do we?"

We have Movember - activities in November raising funds for prostate cancer research: Movember


There are also adverts on the tv advising men to have medical check ups, too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Were naive to think curruption doesn't exist.
Posted by: Ambrose Pare on Jan 23, 2007 5:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Canada, we've recently had some financial law changes, were charities are now being audited.

So far, its not looking good.

Most of the money goes right into the people running its pocket. Of course, that would be stealing as such. So its in the form of High salaries, Expense Accounts, Company Vehicles, Vacations, Bonuses and Company Gifts.

These people are just stealing the money, and calling it bureaucratic benefits to sound legit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nice to see all the experts
Posted by: iconpoet on Feb 6, 2007 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, speaking as a male who does extensive breast cancer outreach training, I can honestly tell you that the 3 Day walk, the pink ribbon and all the other efforts WORK!!!
I live in Atlanta, and I do my outreach primarily in the black community, and the numbers that we have are STAGGERING! The number of black women who have increased their mammgrams and do their BSEs are skyrocketing. But I guess that's just a trumped up number to "dupe" people into actually giving a damn about their total health.
What ever they do in Australia, Denmark or Canada really doesn't matter to me here in Atlanta, where Breast Cancer is the 2nd leading cause of death among black women. While many of these people will be discussing numbers and grand standing, I'll be out there in the trenches.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]