Think Before You Pink

The other day I spoke to reporter Nichole Aksamit of the Omaha World-Herald. Aksamit was researching an article on whether disease awareness days, fund-raising events, ribbons, bracelets and teddy bears worn and sold to raise money for research haven’t become “Too Much of a Good Thing.” For example, twenty one conditions, diseases, health professions, treatments, body organs celebrate celebrate October as their particular awareness month, not to speak of the briefer celebrations of awareness weeks or days. (Today, October 6 is National Depression Screening Day.)

Aksamit asks a gutsy question, particularly in October--Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Coincidentally or not, The Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported this week that while breast cancer mortality rates have declined, incidence of this disease has increased. It is troubling to think that the focus on breast cancer awareness has conceivably and perversely increased acceptance of the prevalence of this disease among women. The focus of most advocacy around breast cancer awareness has been on early detection, screening and treatment—not on prevention. Increasing mammography screening rates does not prevent breast cancer. It may in fact lead us to a false equanimity, a temptation to equate early detection with cure. As more environmentally focused breast cancer advocacy groups tell us, however, “prevention is the cure.”

It was a mammogram that lead Barbara Ehrenreich into the world of pink ribbons and teddy bears that inspired her 2001 critique ““Welcome to Cancerland.”. Ehrenreich uses her personal experience as a woman with breast cancer to explore the “ultrafeminine theme of the breast-cancer ‘marketplace’” and the infantilizing trope that accompanies this theme. (“Certainly men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not receive gifts of Matchbox cars.”) The difficult questions that we need to ask, though, are questions about the relationship between the commercialization of disease awareness and the growth of the multi-billion dollar industries that profit from the prevalence of breast cancer. AstraZeneca, manufacturer of tamoxifen, for example, was a founder and is a funder of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. According to Ehrenreich, until a corporate reorganization in 2000, AstraZeneca was a leading producer of pesticides, including acetochlor, classified by the EPA as a ‘probable human carcinogen.’” “Women,” says Ehrenreich, become the “unwitting allies of the very people who make them sick.” Corporations produce environmental toxins that contribute to high cancer morbidity, promote the “awareness” that leads to more cancer screening, and then market the treatments for the disease. No wonder infantilizing women makes sense. Kind of like keeping them barefoot and pregnant.

So, what can you do this October when the breast cancer fundraisers beckon? Breast Cancer Action has one answer: "Think Before You Pink." This is a great web site with an important advocacy message. Explore the information on some of the “cause-related marketing campaigns.” And by all means browse through the amazing “Parade of Pink: Products for the cause.” But most important, consider the questions BCA suggests you ask before you put your money on a product that promises a contribution:

• How much money actually goes toward breast cancer programs and services?
• Who gets the money?
• What types of programs are being supported?
• How are the funds being raised?

More Pink . . . .

The challenge to the “pinking” phenomenon seems to be spreading. Check out Natasha Singer’s article, “"Perplexing in Pink", in the October 6 New York Times. Singer takes a look at the product sales marketed as a way to raise money for breast cancer. Even when consumers ostensibly are informed about how much of the “net profits,” for example, goes to cancer research, the language in reality divulges little:

"What do net profits or proceeds mean?" asked Lynn Dornblaser, the director of custom solutions at Mintel International, a market research firm that tracks cosmetics products. "How do I know the net profits from each jar aren't going to be a nickel? It's absolutely confusing to consumers."

Dr. Susan Love, a breast cancer expert and the author of Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book, called the pink ribbon a "double-edged sword. . . . Forty-thousand women are still dying each year from breast cancer, but people think if they just run, walk and buy pink things, the problem will be solved." Nevertheless, the pink market is too tempting for even Love to resist. She caved in when it came to raising money for her own foundation, and sells pink bracelets to support her research. She does recommend that consumers ask the kind of questions “Think before you pink” recommends.

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation also recommends asking questions:

• Does the brand have a history of commitment to the cause it is promoting?
• How much of what the consumer spends will go to charity?
• How reputable is the charity?
• What does the charity spend the money on?
• And how meaningful to the consumer is the charity's agenda?

Maybe we should give CMEs or CLEs or some kind of life experience credit for this conscientious consuming: To buy a pair of tweezers, responsible consumerism now requires not only comparing prices (quality, forget it, since they come in plastic covered packaging), but making major decisions about how much of my payment goes to which charity, for what kind of research, not to speak of assessing the true motivation of the tweezers manufacturer. Let’s bring back writing checks.