-
Put Down the Pink, and Pick Up Your Pen!
"Procter & Gamble, like many other companies, is hoping we’ll be so blinded by the pink ribbon on the package – oh, how nice, people care about breast cancer, and are trying to help! – that we forget about the fact that the company sells products with known or suspected carcinogens in them."
Although this article focuses on breast cancer, the points made are relevant to all forms of cancer, none of which have not generated the merchandising power of pink.
Put Down the Pink, and Pick Up Your Pen!
Posted on October 31, 2012 by Caitlin C.
http://bcaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Britta-Reida-e1306194020965.jpg
Britta Reida
By Britta Reida, Breast Cancer Action member
Ah, October. The month I, and most other breast cancer survivors I know, dread. Why can’t October be about beautiful foliage, pumpkins, and cozy sweaters in the crisp, autumn air? Why does October have to be a time when we’re all drowning in a sea of pink ribbons?
There are multiple things that bother me about Breast Cancer Awareness Month. One is that not only are we supposed to think that shopping is the best way to fight breast cancer (it’s really not), but many of the pink ribbon products actually contain chemicals that could give us cancer. What?!
This week, I came across a magazine ad for Procter & Gamble’s pink ribbon products, with fine print that clarifies that Procter & Gamble is donating either one cent or two cents to the National Breast Cancer Foundation per product purchased. That got me wondering, how do they determine which product is a “one cent product,” and which product is a “two cent” one? Ooh, ooh, I know!! Maybe the http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/tide-detergent-1-4-dioxane_n_1455575.html are worthy of two cents being donated to the fight against breast cancer, whereas for the ones which haven’t been tested for carcinogenic chemicals and therefore can’t be considered dangerous, eh, one cent will suffice.
Procter & Gamble, like many other companies, is hoping we’ll be so blinded by the pink ribbon on the package – oh, how nice, people care about breast cancer, and are trying to help! – that we forget about the fact that the company sells products with known or suspected carcinogens in them. It’s incredibly insulting.
Buying pink ribbon products with known carcinogens in them is not going to stop the breast cancer epidemic, and indeed contributes to it. So what’s the solution? Many people say the solution is for everyone to instead only buy natural, carcinogen-free products. There are numerous articles and websites and books about how to do this. Buying safe food and products is important, and in an ideal world, we would all do this.
But “Vote with your wallet!” is a classist statement. Many people don’t have the time or money to do so –for example, an organic queen mattress and box spring costs nearly $3,000. And every human being deserves clean, healthy air, water, food, buildings, and products, not just the elite few who can afford it. What’s more, even people who have enough money to ensure that everything that touches or enters their body or home is free of toxins are not immune to the plethora of toxic chemicals we’re all exposed to every time we step foot into the public sphere.
This is why shopping is not the best way to address the breast cancer epidemic. Insisting that it’s up to each of us to be smart shoppers, and not saying a word about the responsibility of the companies to create and sell safe products, or the responsibility of our government to regulate the chemicals, means letting the corporations and government off the hook. Safe grocery shopping should not require a chemistry degree and two hours in the store reading labels. All food sold in food stores should be safe to eat. Enough shopping! It’s time to raise our voices. Badger the hell out of your elected officials to pass the http://www.saferchemicals.org/safe-chemicals-act/, so we are all protected; to http://www.carighttoknow.org/ and study the hell out of GMO foods, banning if definitively http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/09/gmo-corn-rat-tumor; to just say NO tohttp://steingraber.com/articles/orion-magazine-articles/the-whole-fracking-enchilada/; to increase green energy and reduce our dependence on cancer-causing fossil fuels. Demand that your elected officials do their jobs to protect human health and need, not corporate greed.
There are plenty of organizations online that have ways for you to get involved – petitions to sign, pre-written emails to forward along – and these actions are quick and easy. http://bcaction.org/the-2012-breast-cancer-action-mandate-for-government-action/ this month seeks to get elected officials to publicly endorse the 2012 Breast Cancer Action Mandate for Government Action, which asks elected officials to go beyond just wearing a pink ribbon and commit to real action. Action includes initiating and supporting independent, government funded research; and strongly regulating carcinogenic chemicals.
Emailing this letter to your elected officials is a great idea and a launching pad to go even further – put your heart into it and personalize it. Scribble a “BAN GMOs NOW! Love, a cancer survivor who wants to grow old” postcard to the president every Saturday afternoon. Put your Senator on speed dial, and every time you’re out walking the dog, bring your cell phone, and leave your Senator a message asking them to support strong chemical regulation.
http://bcaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/brittas-letter-to-bernie.jpg
Britta wrote to her Senator, Bernie Sanders, asking him to take endorse our Mandate for Government Action.
We can do this. The first step is believing that we can. If you’re worried that your one little letter won’t make enough of a difference, so why bother, consider that Campbell’s received over 70,000 letters demanding that the company cease its use of BPA, and those 70,000 people won. Industry totally loves it when we blame ourselves for our “bad shopping choices” or the “mistakes” we feel led to us being diagnosed with cancer. Our self-blame is of enormous benefit to those who poison us.
When Women’s Voices for the Earth exposed the fact that Tide detergent contains the carcinogen dioxane, http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/04/30/procter-gamble-defends-against-claims-that-tide-detergents-contain-carcinogens/ basically amounted to, “Oh, c’mon, the amount of dioxane in Tide is soooo tiny, it doesn’t even matter!” If there was really a person whose only exposure to carcinogens was the occasional load of laundry in Tide detergent, I’d concede Procter & Gamble’s point. What they and all the other companies selling products with carcinogenic chemicals are not acknowledging (at least publically) is the accumulation and interactions of the many carcinogens we are all exposed to every day against our will and without our knowledge. But we need to see the bigger picture – see all of the chemical exposures put together as a whole, and see all of our voices put together as a whole. If you were the only one writing a letter saying, hey, Campbell’s, get the BPA out of my soup, Campbell’s could ignore you. But you could be one person with 69,999 other standing in solidarity with you.
Next week, I’m screening the film http://www.livingdownstream.com/ in my living room two days in a row – it’s the story of ecologist and cancer survivor Dr. Sandra Steingraber’s work to educate the public about environmental carcinogens and advocate for their abolition, directed by Chanda Chevannes. Most people who watch this film respond with, “What can we do?”, so a week later, I’m starting a once-a-month activist letter-writing group. We will meet downtown at a tea shop that sells delicious organic tea and baked goods, and together write letters about whatever is in our hearts, whether that means writing thank you notes to local, organic farmers; letters to the editor to share what we’ve learned about chemical exposures; one-liner postcards to the president; or multi-page letters to companies that sell a product we’ve been using for years and just discovered is harmful to our health. The possibilities are endless, and I’m excited that the first group of friends I invited to join me responded with enthusiasm. We will simultaneously be supporting an awesome local business and its organic products, enjoying each other’s company and some time away from our electronic devices to kick it old-school with pens and paper, and using the power of our pens to advocate for a healthy world. You could start a group like this in your community, too. Together, we are strong and cannot be ignored.
http://bcaction.org/2012/10/31/put-down-the-pink-and-pick-up-your-pen/
-
16 Replies
-
I am going to post this and this is the only thing I am going to post. 1,4 Dioxane has never been shown to cause canger in humans. It is listed as a class B2 probable carcinogen. There is NO HUMAN DATA that shows that it is carcinogenic to humans.
-
I lied. I am also including this:
1,4-Dioxane is used as a solvent for cellulose acetate, ethyl cellulose, benzyl cellulose, resins, oils, waxes, and fats; in spectroscopic and photometric measurements; and in the pulping of wood. It is also used as a wetting and dispersing agent in textile processing, a degreasing agent, a polymerization catalyst, and a component of polishing compositions,
dye baths, lacquers, paints, varnishes, stains, printing compositions,
and paint and varnish removers (IARC 1976, 1999, ATSDR 2007, HSDB 2009). Other uses of 1,4-dioxane include the manufacture
of adhesives, cements, deodorant fumigants, cosmetics, drugs, cleaning preparations, magnetic tape, plastic, rubber, insecticides, and herbicides, and as a chemical intermediate, as a polymerization catalyst,
in the purification of drugs, and in the extraction of animal and vegetable oils. In the laboratory, it is used in the preparation of histological
sections for microscopic examination and as a liquid scintillation
counting medium.Do you not think that with pretty much everything we come into conact with on a daily basis there would be human evidence by now that there was a link?
-
No, because it’s not studied thoroughly, nor are the hundreds (thousands?) of chemicals we’re told are safe. It’ll take another 10 or twenty years for them to acknowledge the dangers. Aren’t we used to the drill by now? The proof is the epidemic of unexplained cancers. Take responsibility for yourself + family. Use common sense and don’t relinquish your power to the “experts”. “Expert” opinions change, but the damage done is done!
-
The worst is those who use cancer to promote products and their work this discuss me …there is some into pole fitness too but ill just shut up on this one to stay polite on studio veena
-
When I started talking about this stuff a decade ago, everyone thought I was crazy. Nice to know I'm not alone now. 🙂
-
To really use your pens to fight cancer, write your senators and representatives and ask them to prevent a $2.5 billion budget cut to the NIH in January, which will have a devastating effect on cancer research in the US next year!
-
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/cancercure.asp
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/05/18/big-pharma-ignoring-potential-cancer-cure/
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Blogs/GarySchwitzer/26536
So here’s the thing with me about breast cancer, or any other types of cancers; call me a cynic or a pessemist, a “truther”, or even a bitch, but I feel like asking to donate to cancer research is just lining someone’s pockets. Last year (or maybe it was two years ago now?) I read an artical that said, “Canadian scientists cure cancer, no one takes notice.” This artical was mostly fiction– but had a lot of truth in it. So much money goes into supporting (breast) cancer research and clinical trials are so expensive, why would pharmas want to put out a cure for a readily available, reasonable price?
another truth I’d like to point out is that those Canadian scientists made a significant leap in research. No artical I’ve read has even tried to argue that DCA is a step in the right direction. And with little to no side effects! But how many people do you know who know about this study? I know people who’ve had two types of cancer and haven’t heard of it.
I’d really like to believe that writting my local government office will help some woman or man out there struggling with this disease, but there’s corruption everywhere in that chain of research. Local government might actually want to help their people, but companies that produce drugs are, at the end of the day, a business. And what business doesn’t want more money?
-
Yeah, and they have found that certain substrates of cannabis actually cure cancer (at least in the lab). This knowledge has been around for 20 years but due to our laws it is a difficult area of study.
I guess in the end will I buy a product just because some proceeds go to Komen? No. Will I buy products because they are now made in pink because of Komen? Yeah, probably (I love pink). This is the only reason I have a pink Swiffer in my kitchen. I also look at all of the pink stuff as an in your face kind of reminder to women.
-
CapFeb, I totally agree with you.
The DCA story reminds me of the low-dose aspirin meta analysis done earlier this year that showed a promising effect on cancer prevention. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22513195)
Profit-oriented pharmaceutical companies have little reason to be interested in these unpatentable drugs, not to mention the basic research that underpins any hope of rational drug design.
This is why it's so important to have public funding through the NIH for basic and clinical research!
I'll stop ranting now 🙂
-
CapFeb you have valid points, but there are two different issues: prevention vs drug research. I agree drug research can be questionable! That’s why prevention is so important, and lobbying our representives to clean up our food supply and environment is crucial. As is pressuring companies to remove dangerous carcinogens from there products. These are things we can do outside of pharma. Instead of waiting for a cure we can push for protections. It’s our planet, our food supply and our bodies. People should not be allowed to profit off of destructive practices that affect EVERYONE. That’s all. 💋
-
CapFeb you have valid points, but there are two different issues: prevention vs drug research. I agree drug research can be questionable! That’s why prevention is so important, and lobbying our representives to clean up our food supply and environment is crucial. As is pressuring companies to remove dangerous carcinogens from there products. These are things we can do outside of pharma. Instead of waiting for a cure we can push for protections. It’s our planet, our food supply and our bodies. People should not be allowed to profit off of destructive practices that affect EVERYONE. That’s all. 💋
-
CapFeb you have valid points, but there are two different issues: prevention vs drug research. I agree drug research can be questionable! That’s why prevention is so important, and lobbying our representives to clean up our food supply and environment is crucial. As is pressuring companies to remove dangerous carcinogens from there products. These are things we can do outside of pharma. Instead of waiting for a cure we can push for protections. It’s our planet, our food supply and our bodies. People should not be allowed to profit off of destructive practices that affect EVERYONE. That’s all. 💋
-
Wow, so sorry that posted three times!
-
I'm a cancer researcher (melanoma). I share my lab space with a breast cancer lab. I'm wading in here.
Yes, pink products can definitely be a scam. And when you donate money to cancer you should always take the time to check out the organization. But I don't think most people outside of research really have a clear idea of what we do and how we work.
Research is expensive. Like really so expensive you would be shocked. Small tubes containing 1/10 of a tsp of reagent or antibodies cost around 300-600$. A half litre bottle of water costs 60$. And don't forget buying or borrowing equipment and personnel trained on the equipment which gets into the tens of thousands of dollars. Now remember that cancer, including breast cancer, can be caused by a LOT of factors. Maybe the environment, maybe the person was exposed to something they shouldn't have been, maybe they were pre-disposed. And if you're pre-disposed, which genes and proteins were affected? Was it b-raf? Her-2? The list is long and growing. So even if one specific type of breast cancer is cured in mice, will that impact all breast cancers? Probably not. Trust me, no scientist is sitting on the cure to cancer. Any scientist that had would have already run to the highest impact journal to publish and collect their Nobel prize.
And I wanted to address the amount of "harmful" chemicals like 1,2-Dioxane in our environment. The bottom line is only the dose makes the poison. Water is can kill if you ingest too much. Arsenic is in apples (naturally!), a chemical that causes goiters is in celery, but at the doses found, they do absolutely nothing. Please be weary of articles that use scare tactics. It's not that long ago that most people thought cell phones gave you brain cancer and microwave ovens would make you radioactive.
-
Deesse Jesse, i have just read an article about how harmful the mircowaves are. there is so much of confusing info that most of the time I don’t know who to believe:) keep using my micro though:)
Log in to reply.