We need a cure, not more pink
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Bulletin to organizers: We are aware. We know what the pink ribbon means. We know that breast cancer kills tens of thousands of women each year. You have done a wonderful job.
Now it’s time to shift our energies from marketing to medicine.
As lovely as it was, did we really need to bathe the Washington, D.C., Nieman Marcus store in pink light, as one breast cancer group did earlier this month, then usher guests down a pink carpet for pink hors d’oeuvres and pink cocktails? Do we need Avon marketing breast cancer lipsticks in shades of Brave Brocade, Courageous Coral and Determined Red, as if breast cancer were a plucky undertaking, like skydiving or marching on city hall?
Everywhere you turn, there’s another corporation draping itself in pink. We can Cook for the Cure with KitchenAid. Sip for the Cure with Republic of Tea’s Pink Grapefruit Green Tea blend. Clean for the Cure with the Electrolux Whirlwind LiteSpeed vacuum.
I hesitate to criticize any corporation that takes on a good cause. But these product promotions are as much about green as pink. Which is why the San Francisco-based advocacy group, Breast Cancer Action, has launched its own awareness campaign this month called “Think Before You Pink.”
“Breast cancer today is big business,” says Barbara Brenner, BCA executive director. “More and more companies are using breast cancer as a marketing ploy to sell products while donating very little to the cause.
“We’re urging consumers to ‘think before they pink’ because as long as we believe we’re doing something meaningful about breast cancer by buying into these corporate marketing schemes, the real work that needs to be done around treatment, prevention and access to care will continue to be underfunded and ignored.”
Too much of the money raised by the corporations goes to education rather than research and treatment. For example, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the recipient of much corporate fund raising, last year spent $26 million on research, $6 million on treatment — and $33 million on public health education.
Education often means teaching women about the importance of self-exams and mammograms. But a recent study found that self-examination did not prevent deaths. And there is a growing debate on the effectiveness of mammograms, too.
Clearly, our methods for detection, prevention and cures have not stemmed the spread of the disease, despite all the money raised. Between 1973 and 1980, the incidence of breast cancer for women over 40 was essentially constant. But since 1980, the rate has been rising steadily.
On Wednesday in San Francisco, the California Senate and Assembly Health committees are holding a joint hearing (10 a.m. at City Hall) to consider setting up a pilot “bio-monitoring” program that would measure toxins in women’s bodies through their breast milk. Though few scientists are ready to blame breast cancer on the environment, the link hasn’t been ruled out. A bio-monitoring program, in any case, is a better use of our donations than more posters for self-exams.
Next year, let’s have Breast Cancer Eradication Month. The slogan: Less campaigning, more curing.
(Joan Ryan is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle. Send comments to her in care of this newspaper or send her e-mail at [email protected].)