Pink ribbons or green dollar signs?
A look at the breast cancer business
D.R. Bartlette
Issue date: 4/19/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Saturday is the 25th annual Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure, the largest network of 5K runs in the world and biggest non-profit source of funds to fight breast cancer. Everywhere you look, there are pink ribbons. And why not? The pink ribbon is the poster child for corporate cause-related marketing: it boosts the public image of the company and increases profits. What other disease can we cure by shopping?
All those pink ribbons have certainly done some good. Today, 75 percent of women over 40 get yearly mammograms, up from only 30 percent in 1982. People are surviving breast cancer longer - 25 years ago, the five-year survival rate was 74 percent; today, it's 98 percent. Now, the federal government spends $900 million for breast cancer research, up from $30 million.
And yet for all the awareness and charity, breast cancer rates continue to increase at an alarming rate. In the United States, a woman's risk of breast cancer has nearly tripled during the past 40 years. The rate of new cases climbs each year, despite the billions of dollars spent on research and education. It seems to me there is something missing in the all the pink ribbon hype.
The "awareness" promoted by the pink ribbon industry seems less than complete. Women are commonly warned about only two types of risk factors: genetics and lifestyle. This is despite the fact that fewer than one in 10 cases occur in women with genetic predispositions for breast cancer, and at least half of all cases occur in women with no known risk factors whatsoever.
In looking through the national Susan G. Komen Web site, I found that the overwhelming majority of risk factors listed were all personal - weight, height, age of menopause, genetic factors, etc. The few environmental causes that were listed were down-played; perhaps this is because some of the major donors and sponsors manufacture or use these chemicals.
Cosmetic companies Estée Lauder, Revlon and Avon (the largest private funder of community-based breast cancer programs) all participate in the pink ribbon campaign, and they all sell products containing parabens (preservatives used in cosmetics and body-care products) and phthlates, another endocrine disrupter linked with an increased risk of cancer. The Komen Web site states the cancer-causing effects of parabens are "too weak" to cause concern; the same stance is taken by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, which in turn is promoted by the FDA. I am skeptical about this claim. Because the FDA does not have the authority to approve cosmetics ingredients, it is only parroting what the CIR states - and the CIR is a cosmetics-industry-funded, "self-regulating" body. Remember how safe we were told Vioxx was?
All those pink ribbons have certainly done some good. Today, 75 percent of women over 40 get yearly mammograms, up from only 30 percent in 1982. People are surviving breast cancer longer - 25 years ago, the five-year survival rate was 74 percent; today, it's 98 percent. Now, the federal government spends $900 million for breast cancer research, up from $30 million.
And yet for all the awareness and charity, breast cancer rates continue to increase at an alarming rate. In the United States, a woman's risk of breast cancer has nearly tripled during the past 40 years. The rate of new cases climbs each year, despite the billions of dollars spent on research and education. It seems to me there is something missing in the all the pink ribbon hype.
The "awareness" promoted by the pink ribbon industry seems less than complete. Women are commonly warned about only two types of risk factors: genetics and lifestyle. This is despite the fact that fewer than one in 10 cases occur in women with genetic predispositions for breast cancer, and at least half of all cases occur in women with no known risk factors whatsoever.
In looking through the national Susan G. Komen Web site, I found that the overwhelming majority of risk factors listed were all personal - weight, height, age of menopause, genetic factors, etc. The few environmental causes that were listed were down-played; perhaps this is because some of the major donors and sponsors manufacture or use these chemicals.
Cosmetic companies Estée Lauder, Revlon and Avon (the largest private funder of community-based breast cancer programs) all participate in the pink ribbon campaign, and they all sell products containing parabens (preservatives used in cosmetics and body-care products) and phthlates, another endocrine disrupter linked with an increased risk of cancer. The Komen Web site states the cancer-causing effects of parabens are "too weak" to cause concern; the same stance is taken by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, which in turn is promoted by the FDA. I am skeptical about this claim. Because the FDA does not have the authority to approve cosmetics ingredients, it is only parroting what the CIR states - and the CIR is a cosmetics-industry-funded, "self-regulating" body. Remember how safe we were told Vioxx was?
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Randi
posted 4/19/07 @ 4:53 PM CST
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, of the National Insitutes of Health is recruiting women for a study of the environmental and genetic causes of breast cancer right now, and you can help! The Sister Study needs 50,000 women by 2008. (Continued…)
Post a Comment