Does Going Pink Lead to "The Cure"?

Real questions do need to be asked about pink products and real progress in prevention and cure of breast cancer.

Back in March, BCA re-launched the Think Before You Pink® blog to provide information and resources for those interested in shifting the dominant breast cancer narrative. One of our goals was to provide concrete tools that would help people start conversations with their friends, family and communities. As a result, I am excited to announce that we are finishing a “first draft” of our brand-new Think Before You Pink® toolkit. We’ll be offering a sneak peek next week, so stay tuned!

As a lead-in to the initial release of our toolkit, we thought that it would be interesting to revisit our campaign’s best known resource – our critical questions. We created these questions in response to the rise of breast cancer related cause marketing and the lack of transparency about how the generated revenue is spent.

In the years since we’ve started our campaign, we’ve seen a lot of changes: a number of organizations have adapted our questions, mainstream news outlets have reported on the unregulated (and sometimes problematic) use of the pink ribbon, and many companies have even started to disclose more information about their “breast cancer awareness” campaigns.

However, there’s still much work to be done.

The first of our questions is: How much money actually goes toward breast cancer programs and services?

In 2009, the Boston Globe ran an article with the following information:

“Research [has shown] that 79 percent of consumers would likely switch to a brand that supports a cause, all other things being equal. People want to buy from companies that appear to do good deeds. In one test conducted by Cone and Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, shampoo aligned with a cause saw a 74 percent sales increase over the same brand without a cause.”

Donations to breast cancer organizations still pale in comparison to profits. Just last year, Reebok marketed an entire line of pink ribbon apparel and accessories, with prices ranging from $50-$100. However, they set a “cap” on the proceeds that they would donate to the Avon Breast Cancer Crusade: $750,000. One wonders how much money they made by “linking” themselves to the breast cancer epidemic.

Similarly, Yoplait requires participants in its “Save Lids to Save Lives” campaign to either mail lids to the company or enter a code online to donate a whopping 10 cents to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Why not donate a significant portion of overall sales instead? Hmm.

It gets worse: a quick Google search yields a number of pink items without any apparent connection to breast cancer organizations at all.

These promotions are successful because people want to help end the breast cancer epidemic. They want action steps – and there are few provided.

With our advocacy and education work, we aim to provide more options.

Selections from 30+ Pink posts from Natural Health News

Pink Cause Marketing  Feb 24, 2011
This is why for more than a decade we have been saying THINK Before You Pink! Women's Health Month is March, and that is not too far away. FDA Warns of Potential of Serious Side Effects with Topical Numbing Agents . ...

Natural Health News: The Trouble With PINK
Aug 14, 2006
General Mills also refuses to allow our health education oriented non-profit organiztion, Creating Health Institute, from participating in the annual pink lid promotion. CHI does a very great amount of public health ...

Natural Health News: The Politics of Breast Cancer
May 12, 2011
What is so wrong with pink ribbon marketing? THINK BEFORE YOU PINK. Why on earth would corporations involved in the treatment and diagnosis of women with breast cancer try to control how the public understands the ...

Pink Cause Marketing

20 years of Cause Marketing

I started to wonder why corporations, which on every other front care about making money, suddenly “get philanthropy” when it comes to breast cancer. Now I question the motivation of companies who slap the pink ribbon on their products. I feel exploited as a survivor and feel that most companies use the pink ribbon to increase their sales. Source

Selections from Natural Health News

PINK Cause Marketing

Oct 05, 2009

4 September 2010 - The Pink Cause Marketing is getting underway once again. I just received a spam from a PR firm about a massage clinic in Seattle that would give $15 from each massage to the Komen Foundation. ...

No More Pink Please

Oct 02, 2010

This is why for more than a decade we have been saying THINK Before You Pink! Women's Health Month is March, and that is not too far away. FDA Warns of Potential of Serious Side Effects with Topical Numbing Agents . ...

October Pink Promotions

Oct 01, 2008

In your effort to not be swayed by massive marketing of pink lids on toxic products join the campaign to stop Yoplait from using rGBH hormone laced milk to make their synthetic goop. Yoplait touts its yogurt as being healthy for women, ...

CLUCK FOR THE CURE PART 1, AND NOW PART 2

Regular readers of Natural Health News are aware of the concerns we have raised over "cause marketing".

I am very pleased that Dr. Moss has also recognized this serious issue and I will add Part II when it is published.

My advice for now is not to engage in the 'Race for the Cure', eat plenty of fruits, vegetables and skip the pink bucket from KFC.

Cluck for the Cure PART 1
By Ralph Moss, PhD Sunday, 25 April 2010

Last week we were told that fruit and vegetable consumption allegedly has no beneficial effect on cancer incidence. This week we learn that in order to fight cancer we should buy a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. The sprawling chicken purveyor and Susan G. Komen for the Cure® have teamed up "to raise funds and spread breast cancer awareness and educational messaging" via a campaign at 5,000 KFC restaurants.

Participating franchises will sell "specially designed pink buckets of grilled and Original Recipe chicken" and KFC will then give 50 cents to Komen for every pink bucket that is ordered during the promotion period. In addition, the lids of these special pink buckets "will have a call to action to get involved." The names of "breast cancer survivors and those who have lost their battle with breast cancer will be listed on the sides of the bucket." The campaign is called "Buckets for the Cure."

Coincidentally, KFC has been in the news recently for a great innovation in dining: the Doubledown. This is an all-meat sandwich, consisting of two pieces of bacon, two slices of cheese and the famous Colonel's Sauce, which contains soybean oil, sugar, chicken fat, monosodium glutamate (MSG), and other goodies. All of this cholesterol is packed between two boneless fried chicken fillets! This "breadless wonder" (as the Toronto Sun called it) first made its appearance at a few locations last summer and was so successful that it was launched across the entire US in April 2010. The original recipe version contains 540 calories, 1380 mg of salt and 32 grams of fat. The company's Web site boasts: "This product is so meaty, there's no room for a bun!" Apologists for the fast food industry have pointed out that Burger King's Triple Whopper has 76 grams of fat. The Doubledown is dietetic by comparison.

Then there's the acrylamide issue. In 2000 Swedish scientists discovered a chemical called acrylamide in such foods as potato chips, French fried potatoes, etc. (Tareke 2000). The Food and Drug Administration then conducted an analysis of the American food supply for acrylamide content and found between 117 and 313 parts per billion (ppb) in KFC French fries, depending on the location sampled. Relatively speaking, this is a very high amount.

Acrylamide is considered a "probable human carcinogen" (Hogervorst 2010). In rat studies, it increased the incidence of mammary gland (breast) cancer as well as thyroid tumors and scrotal mesothelioma. In humans, there is an increased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers, renal cell cancer and oral cavity cancer, even in non-smoking women (ibid.).

A 2009 Dutch epidemiological study showed "some indications of a positive association between dietary acrylamide intake and receptor-positive breast cancer risk in postmenopausal never-smoking women (Pedersen 2009). Comparing the highest consumers of acrylamide to women in the lowest group there was a 43 percent increase in breast cancer in women with ER and PR positive cancers. (A Harvard study found no such association.).

Cluck for the Cure - Part II
Sunday, 02 May 2010

Last week we began a discussion of the alliance between Susan G. Komen for the Cure® and Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). We conclude, with references, this week.

Pinkwashing

Barbara Brenner of Breast Cancer Action (BCA) calls the alliance between Komen and KFC an egregious example of "pinkwashing." This occurs "when a company purports to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink ribboned product, but manufactures products that are linked to the disease. Make no mistake," Brenner adds, "every pink bucket purchase will do more to benefit KFC's bottom line than it will to cure breast cancer."

She also points out that KFC, like most fast food chains, is overwhelmingly present in communities that have poor health outcomes. These social inequities can affect breast cancer mortality rates. "Given this disconnect, we are especially disturbed by this partnership," Brenner says. BCA has launched a campaign to break up the Komen-KFC liaison.

I am a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Breast Cancer Action. In the past I have also been an advisor to Susan G. Komen. Frankly, I think Komen has made a misstep here. Although they will raise money for cancer research by this gambit, they have also providing cover to KFC by doing so. At a time when healthy eating is under broad attack, Komen has chosen to associate itself with products that may, ironically, be linked to an increased incidence of breast cancer, especially in poor and minority communities.

To quote Barbara Brenner: "What the cluck?"