I’ve written before here about my dismay with the Susan Komen Foundation and the commodification of breast cancer. Now I’ve found an interesting group called “Think before you Pink” that expresses some of my concerns in an organized way.
If I’m going to donate, I’ll donate directly. I encourage you to also donate your time and money. But, do you really need to buy more stuff? As TBYP says, “contribute to a cause, not a cause marketer.”
It is almost impossible in some cases to determine how much money is being donated. Some examples of pink stuff are just…mindboggling. Seriously, how much energy is used in washing and mailing in yogurt labels? Of course, some poor schmuck also has to open all the moldy envelopes and count the yogurt lids–is that really efficient?
Additionally, there is the question of how much the corporations that are selling pink stuff are also manufacturing chemicals or products that may promote breast, or other, cancers.
There’s been some very happy news about US cancer deaths lately–namely that the rate has been dropping by over 2% a year for some time. However, the improvements aren’t seen for everyone:
“Researchers attribute the problems to poverty, lower education levels and lack of insurance and access to medical care. …“The concern we have,” said Elizabeth Ward, director of cancer surveillance for the American Cancer Society, “is that much of the progress we’ve attained in reducing death rates comes from tobacco control, screening and access to timely and high-quality treatment, and those positive effects are not being seen in all populations in the U.S.”“
The American Cancer Society recognized this issue of unequal access to care this year:
“Lack of adequate health insurance, language and cultural barriers, racial bias and stereotyping are just a few of the many hurdles ethnic minorities face. For example, African Americans are more likely to develop and die from cancer than any other racial or ethnic population, and cancer has been the number one killer of Asian-American women since 1980. “
Buying stuff will not fix those problems. Local initiatives, getting people access to mammograms, and follow-up care will. My experience watching people try to navigate getting cancer care (and paying for it) suggests that what we really need are more patient advocates to help with insurance claims and sorting out treatment options, not more research.
Don’t get me wrong–research is good–but is that really where ALL the money needs to go?
Groups like the Young Survival Coalition and the Patient Advocate Foundation are also doing really important work, but don’t seem to have the marketing umph of Komen. The Cancer Survival Toolbox helps patients sort out what to do, and how to pay for it. And, in my observation, those are the topics are the hardest to deal with, and where people need the most help.
You can read some interesting articles on the marketing of the pink ribbon here, including some surprising info about the political activities of the Komen Foundation.
7 Comments
Good post. And true too. An article posted by Georgie Binks on CBC last year suggests that we have reason to be skeptical in Canada too.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_binks/20060916.html
I could spend $2 to buy a stupid pink magnet for my car, or I could donate $2 to the Canadian Cancer Society. More of my money would go to cancer research, and none of my money would go to the manufacturer of the stupid magnet.
Agreed, well said.
While I have seen campaigns that make some sense (donate $X and we’ll give you 10% off in our store; in other words, rewarding generosity), I have always been baffled by the yogurt tops. That always seems like such a poor investment, on everyone’s part.
There’s nothing wrong with picking a product that donates some of its proceeds to charity, especially if it was something you were going to buy anyway. But I can never see the sense in spending money you weren’t already going to spend to “support a cause”. If 100% of the proceeds from your pink t-shirt (or “jugs”) was going to support research or treatment or survivors, it might be different. As Peregrine mentioned, you could donate $2 to the cancer society. In many cases, if you donated half of what you were spending to the cancer society and kept the other half, they’d get more money than they would from the pink item, you’d save some money, and there would be that much less junk to end up in the landfill.
This is interesting–the report card on women’s health was released today.
http://hrc.nwlc.org/
Dear Bug Girl:
I love your take on the “think pink” phenomenon, and wish more women understood the full picture and would stop buying all those pink products — and start helping out in a more productive way!
Unfortunately, there is even more that is wrong with the “think pink” phenomenon than most people know about. For instance, most women don’t know about the POLITICS that surround the entire “Cancer Industry.” (This phrase was coined by Ralph Moss, PhD, with his book of the same name.) This, and many other books, give lots of examples that demonstrate that the cancer industry has political and financial ties with pharmaceutical and chemical companies — the very companies that benefit most from the chemotherapy that is given to treat cancer. (Pharmaceutical companies benefit because they provide the cancer treatments. Chemical companies benefit because they may actually be causing the cancers, as several books point out — including Samuel Epstein, MD’s “The Politics of Cancer (1978, 1998); and two books published in 2007: “Cancer: 101 Solutions to a Preventable Epidemic,” by Liz Armstrong, Guy Dauncey, and Anne Wordsworth; and “The Secret History of the War on Cancer,” by Dr. Devra Lee Davis.)
The Breast Cancer Industry is fraught with such ties. For instance, did you know that the American Cancer Society receives many donations from big pharmaceutical companies – for instance, AstraZeneca’s $10 million donation, earlier this year? (Both Arimidex and Tamoxifen were developed by, and are distributed by, AstraZeneca!)
There are also political connections. For instance, when you buy pink products, with part of the money going to the Susan G. Koman Foundation, are you aware that Nancy Brinker, the founder of the organization, has heavy ties to the Republican Party, and was named by George W. Bush to a US Ambassadorship? (She was also on governmental panels during the three most recent Republican presidents. These facts may not bother you at all — but they may.)
Whether or not you are bothered by Ms. Brinker’s Republican Party connections, I am quite sure that most women will be upset to learn that “the Komen Foundation helped block a meaningful Patients Bill of Rights for the women it has purported to serve since the group began in 1982.” (Please read Mary Ann Swissler’s article, “The Marketing of Breast Cancer” at http://www.alternet.org/story/14014/?page=entire.)
Numerous articles have been written about the politics and financial ties surrounding many National Breast Cancer Awareness Month activities. Several articles have been collected and posted on the thinkbeforeyoupink.org website. (I am so glad you linked to those articles in your posting.)
There are also lots of other articles on the Cancer Industry on my website, http://www.HonestMedicine.com.
But, unfortunately, these are the on-the-surface financial concerns — the fact that these organizations have financial ties to the very organizations that benefit from their work.
More recently, another concern has been raised — a concern that is NOT at all being addressed by these organizations:
A HUGE QUESTION: IS EARLY DETECTION WITH MAMMOGRAMS REALLY THE BEST WAY TO SAVE LIVES?
Several recent articles say that no, early detection with mammograms is NOT the best approach to treating breast cancer.
One of the most vocal, and highest profile, journalists to write about this is Shannon Brownlee, author of the recent excellent, and controversial, book, “Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer.” Her point is that Americans are being over-scanned, over-surgeried, and just plain over-treated, by our medical system, and that, in many cases, this over-treatment results in worse outcomes. This, and a book called “Money Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much,” by Maggie Mahar, are two very important books; I urge everyone to read both.
Ms. Brownlee addressed the mammogram issue BEFORE the publication of her book, in a 2002 “New Republic” cover story, “Search and Destroy: Why Mammograms Are Not the Answer.” Her main point in this excellent article — and she uses numerous credible resources to back up her position — is that mammograms, in addition to being moneymakers for the institutions that provide them, are the first step toward a huge cash cow these hospitals will enjoy when their mammograms discover breast cancers: chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, etc.
But, as if this weren’t bad enough, it turns out that mammograms may be detecting more of the tiny cancers, which might never have bothered women had they not been detected so early, and fewer of the aggressive cancers that kill. In other words, mammograms may actually be doing more harm than good, by subjecting some women with potentially harmless tumors to potentially harmful treatments — surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.
But the best part about Shannon Brownlee is that she doesn’t just criticize. She has a solution, too, which is to concentrate our research dollars on finding ways to tell whether a cancer is — or isn’t — the kind that will eventually kill a woman later on, so that doctors will not operate on all women with the tiniest (and least cancerous) of growths, telling them, “Boy, are you lucky we caught this so early!” (Well, maybe yes, and maybe no.)
So, maybe it’s time that the “think pink” companies and organizations look to avenues other than recommending that women buy products and get mammograms.
I realize that I have included many resources in this comment. For those who would like to access the links, I have posted the text of this comment — complete with hyperlinks to each and every resource — on my website. (See “National Breast Cancer Awareness Month — Honest Medicine’s Julia Schopick Responds to Sen. Joe Biden,” on my site.)
Well, Bug Girl, I hope my comment hasn’t been too long. I appreciate everything you are doing to raise women’s awareness!
Julia Schopick
I will let Julia’s comment stand for now, although it’s suspiciously spammy.
The concept that big pharma is promoting cancer for profit is BS–Orac had a great article on this here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/10/breast_cancer_awareness_month_deception.php
Hmmmm…I looked a bit at her site (as you know I have a stake in this debate)and while some points are valid, I found the overall feeling was that cancer can be treated with herbals and a good diet. While I am all for people finding their own path of treatment that works for them, I think we need to be careful when we go pointing fingers at big companies, healthcare industry, etc…as evil.
In particular, this quote from her website:
“Her main point in this excellent article — and she uses numerous credible resources to back up her position — is that mammograms, in addition to being moneymakers for the institutions that provide them, are the first step toward a huge cash cow these hospitals will enjoy when their mammograms discover breast cancers: chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, etc.”
Now, that’s assuming that the patient gets all their treatment at the same hospital (I went to 3 different ones for my treatment). Also, it seems to imply that hospitals are hoping to find something wrong (cue Monty Burns with evil laughter here and rubbing of hands).
And I kinda resent being called a huge cash cow….;-)
I have heard from MANY people of the conspiracy theory that “they” have a cure for cancer but they don’t share it because that would eliminate huge profits and blah, blah, blah. Are there major problems with healthcare companies and the pharmaceutical industry? You bet! But, we must also remember that, at the end of the day, there are PEOPLE working for these companies. People who have seen loved ones suffer from cancer and who want to help others not suffer. They can’t all be evil corporate minions.
Finally, yes, I agree that we are way over tested and over medicated but I would NEVER suggest that a woman not get a mammogram. If you find something early then you have many options to explore. Sticking your head in the sand will not make it go away.