Showing posts with label BPA. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Too Much Pink Ms. Brinker?...Yes, yes there is!

******

.] I was so enraged, however, when I read Ms. Brinker's OP-ED piece myself, I just couldn't sit quietly. My own opinions and fingers started churning. I share Ms. Brinker's OP-ED in its entirety below.

First impression for the uninitiated [not meant to be derogatory, but only to categorize those who enjoy an envious life beyond researching anything and everything related to breast cancer] may be..hey, SGK sounds like they are on the front line for those living with breast cancer...PINK ON! Then, there is the fact-check. And Ms. Brinker's defenses, in my opinion, crumble. I share my opinion and my two cents in CAPS at the most egregious of her statements, below. I have also included all of the posted comments to Ms. Brinker's OP-ED. They are articulate, respectful, and spot-on. They challenge the unsupported assertions of Ms. Brinker brilliantly, and made me proud to be an ANTI-PINK RABBLE-ROUSING GRUMBLING PLEBE.

Another View: Too much pink? Not while breast cancer still kills

Special to The [Sacramento] Bee

OPINION - Published Sunday, Oct. 30, 2011

Nancy G. Brinker, former ambassador to Hungary, is founder and CEO, Susan G. Komen for the Cure. She is responding to the Oct. 23 article by Francesca Lyman in California Forum, "Pink Inc. has many starting to see red."

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and every year at this time we hear grumblings about pink, the color of the breast cancer movement.

"There's too much pink." "We have enough awareness." "Where is the money going?"

When a Portland woman is living in her car because she can't afford her cancer treatment; when a Chicago woman has to choose between paying bus fare to treatment or buying food for her family; and when treatments for metastatic breast cancer are often more debilitating than the disease itself, then there is not too much pink during October. We'd argue there's not enough.

MS. BRINKER, YOU NEGLECT TO SHARE THE LACK OF FUNDING THAT SGK ITSELF DIRECTS TOWARD METASTATIC BREAST CANCER RESEARCH & TREATMENT. YOU GLOSS OVER THE SAD FACT THAT SGK SOLELY FOCUSES ON EARLY DETECTION...WHICH DOES NOT NECESSARILY "SAVE LIVES." THE VERY TRAGIC IRONY IS THAT SUSAN G. KOMEN DIED FROM METASTATIC BREAST CANCER. SEE ALSO... http://boo-bee-trap.blogspot.com/2011/10/peaking-behind-pink-curtain.html

For the skeptics out there, we'd invite you to take a few minutes to learn what the pink is actually doing. You might be surprised to learn that 84 cents of every dollar spent by Susan G. Komen for the Cure over the past five years has gone to cutting-edge research, to community programs that get women into and through cancer treatment, to advocacy programs that preserved cancer funding in 19 states, and to things that mean a lot when you're sick, like wigs, groceries, co-pays and, hopefully, an end to having to choose between feeding your family and going to the doctor's office.

FOR THE "PINK BELIEVERS" OUT THERE, SGK HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR 32 YEARS, WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION: WHY DID SGK ONLY START DIRECTING FUNDING TO "CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH" FIVE YEARS AGO? MORE CURIOUS IS THAT OF THE ESTIMATED $2.1 BILLION TOTAL PUBLIC SUPPORT AND REVENUE RAISED (1982-2010) SGK SPENT ONLY $500 MILLION ON RESEARCH.

Pink also pays for awareness, because despite the assumption that everyone knows all there is to know about breast cancer, women still tell me they don't need a mammogram because there's no history of breast cancer in their family (awareness check: most people diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history); or because they've never worn underwire bras (awareness check: underwire bras have nothing to do with breast cancer).

"FINDING CANCER DOES NOT ALWAYS SAVE LIVES....MAMMOGRAMS CAN RESULT IN FALSE-NEGATIVE RESULTS [AS MY PERSONAL HISTORY OF MAMMOGRAMS ATTEST]. REGRETTABLY, SCREENING MAMMOGRAMS MISS UP TO 20% OF BREAST CANCERS THAT ARE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF SCREENING. FURTHER... SCREENING MAMMOGRAMS ALSO FIND CANCERS & CASES OF DCIS THAT WILL NEVER CAUSE SYMPTOMS OR THREATEN A WOMAN'S LIFE, LEADING TO 'OVERDIAGNOSIS' [AND 'OVERTREATMENT'] OF BREAST CANCER...EXPOSING WOMEN UNNECESSARILY TO THE ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH CANCER THERAPY."

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/mammograms

So no, there's not too much awareness. And yes, all this pink does quite a bit of good.

The $685 million that Komen has invested in research over 30 years has helped reduce breast cancer death rates by 31 percent since 1991. It has helped improve five-year relative survival rates for early stage cancers to 99 percent, up from 74 percent when I started. It has paid for treatments that are making it possible for many women, even with aggressive or metastatic disease, to live longer, and it has provided key research findings for patients with other types of cancer, most notably those with BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 genetic mutations.

SGK's OWN 990 REPORTS INDICATE ONLY $500 MILLION INVESTED, NOT $685M. I CULLED AGAIN THROUGH KOMEN'S REPORTS, AFTER READING MS. BRINKER'S OP-ED, AND COULD NOT FIND THE ADDITIONAL $185 MILLION SHE PADS ON TO THE ABOVE FIGURE. MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOWEVER, IN 1991, 43,583 WOMEN DIED FROM BREAST CANCER. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00026281.html
ACCORDING TO THE CDC, IN 2007 (the most recent year numbers that are currently available) 40,598 WOMEN DIED IN THE U.S. FROM BREAST CANCER. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/index.html THE DIFFERENCE IS 14.6 %, NOT 31%; AND SGK'S ACTUAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE ACTUAL DECREASE IN NUMBERS IS NOT DEFINITIVE. ANECDOTALLY, OF THE 3 ONCOLOGISTS I INTERVIEWED FOR MY OWN CARE, ALL OF THEM CONCURRED THAT THERE REALLY HAS NOT BEEN A DECREASE IN THE DEATH RATE FROM BREAST CANCER IN 50 YEARS. THE REPORTED DIFFERENCES IS HOW THE DEATHS OF WOMEN ARE BEING CATEGORIZED. E.G. UTERINE CANCER, OVARIAN CANCER vs. MBC.

At Komen alone, the funds raised from pink paid for 700,000 breast screenings last year for poor and uninsured women, and provided financial and social support for another 100,000.

BY THE WAY, SGK OWNS STOCK IN GENERAL ELECTRIC - ONE OF THE LARGEST MAKERS OF MAMMOGRAPHY EQUIPMENT IN THE WORLD.

All told, Susan G. Komen has pumped $1.3 billion into programs in thousands of communities that provide this real help to real women, men and families facing breast cancer.

In California, Komen has funded $64 million since 1982 to research at institutions across the state, including 68 active research projects totaling $30 million today. The eight Komen Affiliates serving California have awarded millions to local community programs and fought to preserve state-funded breast cancer programs for California's low-income and underserved women.

The research we're funding here, and globally, is investigating environmental factors in breast cancer, real prevention strategies, ways to find breast cancer before symptoms appear, ways to stop it before it spreads, and ways to effectively treat the deadliest forms of this disease for those with metastatic and aggressive disease. The community programs target women who, without our help, will not get access to screenings, cancer treatment and follow-up care.

GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS MS. BRINKER...WHAT ABOUT SGK'S REQUISITION OF ITS NEW PERFUME, "PROMISE ME," THAT CONTAINS GALAXOLIDE - A KNOWN HORMONE DISRUPTER, AND TOLUENE - A POTENT NEUROTOXICANT BANNED BY THE INTERNATIONAL FRAGRANCE ASSOCIATION. http://boo-bee-trap.blogspot.com/2011/09/promise-me-pink.html
WHAT ABOUT SGK'S FLIP-FLOPPING ON THE IMPACT OF POLYCARBONATE PLASTICS CONTAINING BPAs ON OUR HEALTH. SEE, SGK WEBSITE 02/2011. COULD SGK'S INCONSISTENT STANCE ON BPA LADEN PLASTICS BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS BRAND NAMED SPONSORS: COCA-COLA, GENERAL MILLS, GEORGIA-PACIFIC, 3M - INDUSTRIES THAT ALL USE BPAs IN THEIR MANUFACTURING AND PACKAGING. MS. BRINKER, I NOTE THAT YOU ARE ALSO SILENT AS TO THE FACT THAT SGK OWNS STOCK IN SEVERAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INCLUDING ASTRA-ZENECA (aka AZKONOBEL), THE MAKER OF TAMOXIFEN - WHOSE SIDE EFFECTS INCLUDE UTERINE CANCER.

Research and community programs cost money, and we make no apologies for raising the funds that make them possible. In fact, we need to raise more, because - despite our advances - a woman is still being diagnosed with breast cancer every 19 seconds and a woman dies of breast cancer every 74 seconds somewhere in the world.

WHILE WOMEN CONTINUE TO DIE AT RATES THAT HAVE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED SINCE 1960, SGK SPENDS NEARLY $1 MILLION YEARLY SUING SMALL CHARITIES FOR THE USE OF THE WORD: "CURE." SGK'S GENERAL COUNSEL, JONATHAN BLUM, WHEN COMMENTING ON A LEGAL BATTLE INVOLVING SGK AND A SMALL LUNG CANCER NON-PROFIT, FOR USING THE WORD "CURE", STATED: "WE SEE IT AS RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF OUR DONOR'S FUNDS.

Do consumers need to be aware of where their dollars are going? Absolutely. We urge people to do their homework before donating to ensure that their dollars go to organizations that are legitimately engaged in ending breast cancer.

WHICH IS WHY IN REVIEWING SGK'S 990s YOU CAN DISCOVER THAT THE CLAIMS BY MS. BRINKER, ON BEHALF OF SGK, DO NOT PAN OUT.

If you do like pink - and our surveys say most people do - then I thank you for seeing it for what it is: the symbol of a movement that is doing all that it can to end suffering from the leading cancer killer of women worldwide. Half a million women will die of breast cancer in the world this year, including 40,000 right here in the United States.

AGAIN, MS. BRINKER, IT CANNOT BE OVERSTATED, THAT THIS NUMBER HAS NOT SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGED IN 50 YEARS, DESPITE THE BILLIONS RAISED...AND SPENT BY SGK.

Roulette Wheels as breast markers
...nice. At least they're organic [?]

There won't be enough pink until the fight against this disease is won.

Showing 8 comments (these are the total comments that were posted)

Bobbalino

You say that your research over the last 30 years "has helped reduce breast cancer death rates by 31 percent since 1991. " But breast cancer mortality is going up not down!

Carrie Anne Kelly

Lets stop "cutesifying" Breast Cancer with all the pink nonsense and get to the matter at hand which is that your organization is aligning itself with the very industries that are suspect to be using harmful material in the production of their products. If you are really interested in finding the cure, then show us by demanding accountability from the food, cosmetic and household cleaning industry. Oh right. You're too busy suing smaller organizations for using the term "For the Cure".
BBZinger

Ms. Brinker has been defending pink for years. Her anecdotes don't prove her point. If women with breast cancer are living in their cars, they don't need pink, they need money. When I was Executive Director of Breast Cancer Action, and since, I have heard numerous complaints about Komen's non-responsiveness to individuals in need of help, despite the enormous resources at Komen's disposal. Pink is a pretty color, but there is nothing pretty or happy about a breast cancer diagnosis. For a different view, see www.barbarabrenner.net
natrum

Ms Brinker, What I do not understand, is why so very little, if any, of the Komen Millions of dollars is spent on education regarding prevention. There is good information out there, and much benefit could come from people learning about diet, the protection afforded by adequate vitamin D, the fact that ingested sugar directly feeds cancer cells, the toxins in our consumer products, the dangers of radiation.... the list is very long. Heredity is a small part of risk. And even then, gene expression is not an absolute. The environment plays a key role. Pink buckets filled with chicken pumped with hormones and antibiotics, coated in who-knows-what, fried in genetically modified soy oil, is an example of the environmental dangers to avoid.
Breast cancer "awareness" needs to include actions to take to avoid it, even at the risk of offending industrial sponsors whose products are implicated in causation. This is information I want my sister to know.
Erika Munson Sudz

Funny thing, I looked ALL Over the Komen web site for assistance regarding prescriptions/travel/insurance/lodging. All I found were links to OTHER organizations to ask for assistance there was nothing there showing how Komen was offering to help anyone. Such a scam
ricaLIVESTRONG

The Pink Machine driven by Komen is a FARCE. I have called and tried to contact Komen for support during my breast cancer battle. Those requests for help, the chance to redeem themselves in my eyes, were ignored, though I WAS subscribed, unwillingly, to their marketing material. Thanks, Komen, but LIVESTRONG will get every cancer-fighting dime I have to give.

The ongoing hypocrisy of Komen is sickening, to the point that I need to ingest some pink - Pepto-Bismol.

Partnering with companies like KFC for a pink bucket, which only ENCOURAGES behavior that can INCREASE CHANCES of breast cancer, selling perfume and glamorizing the fight by wrapping it up in pink bows, and showing beautifully made-up bald women (who are obviously wearing bald caps) is false advertising and INSULTING to those of us in the throes of the fight.

And do I even need to bring up the despicable habit of taking over the phrase "For The Cure?" Well, here. Sue me.

I encourage EVERYONE out there to REBEL For The Cure.
Pink ribbons are not welcome in my home, or hospital room. Yellow is.

LIVE STRONG.
CA_Comment

Ms. Brinker - respectfully the public does support the need to help connect and drive critical funds to research that will deliver a cure, improve awareness, improve early detection, aid diagnosis, and help women and men get access to critical care for this cancer so they may fight and survive this disease, as well as regain quality and quantity of life. To say we do not care about this because we question the current implementation of the pink campaign is incorrect.

We are giving you valuable feedback that the pink campaign is important (otherwise no one would care to give you feedback), We are telling you it appears the pink campaign is at risk of becoming distracted/diluted and in some business alliances and implementations the campaign is downright hijacked. You may not like this message...but this message is real and affords an opportunity for you and others working to make a difference to consider and adjust. We are not telling you to stop. We are however telling you there is a need to make some changes or you risk alienating even more of your supporters.

Although your organization holds a position as a leading voice on this cause...you must remember this is a human issue we all own. We are your stakeholders. We want and need you (and other organizations who can help us make a real impact) to be successful. In exchange for our support, we are demanding a vigilance by you or anyone else that takes this role. Our message is be attentive that the means-to-an-end approach does not become the actual downfall for the support needed to defeat the cancer itself. What decisions you make...good or bad...not only reverberate to breast cancers...but they spill over to work being done for all cancers.
Miss Susie

I have to agree with this idea. When I saw the pink KFC basket, I thought, really? Fast food containers for cancer--doesn't that just encourage people to live a lifestyle that promotes disease while allowing themselves to feel good about it because it's going to cancer? I felt the same way when another chain (or maybe it was also KFC) was promoting a beverage special--read: cola--to help the fight against diabetes.

When it's all about buying 'pink,' you run the risk of marginalizing the issue--it's not a serious medical issue, we can just solve it by shopping. The various partnerships make it also seem a little hokey. I never buy pink because I always stop and think to myself, well, once the money spent goes to pay for the actual item, the costs of shipping and production, marketing, packaging, et cetera, there's probably very little left for actual breast cancer. (The few things I need that come in pink don't really match my house, like the KitchenAid mixer I saw when I was buying one.)

I'm all in favor of getting more pink out there for the awareness, but I think there is a valid point to be made about being cautious of various commercial partnerships.

Monday, May 10, 2010

PSA - Op Ed from the NY Times: "President's Cancer Panel"

******

May 6, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies.

The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday, warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health.

I’ve read an advance copy of the report, and it’s an extraordinary document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals.

Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President’s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic.

In particular, the report warns about exposures to chemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damage seems to be greatest. Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study warns that: “to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ ”

It’s striking that this report emerges not from the fringe but from the mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the President’s Cancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group of three distinguished experts who review America’s cancer program and report directly to the president.

One of the seats is now vacant, but the panel members who joined in this report are Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr., an oncologist and professor of surgery at Howard University, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, an immunologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Both were originally appointed to the panel by former President George W. Bush.

“We wanted to let people know that we’re concerned, and that they should be concerned,” Professor Leffall told me.

The report blames weak laws, lax enforcement and fragmented authority, as well as the existing regulatory presumption that chemicals are safe unless strong evidence emerges to the contrary.

“Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety,” the report says. It adds: “Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated.”

Industry may howl. The food industry has already been fighting legislation in the Senate backed by Dianne Feinstein of California that would ban bisphenol-A, commonly found in plastics and better known as BPA, from food and beverage containers.

Studies of BPA have raised alarm bells for decades, and the evidence is still complex and open to debate. That’s life: In the real world, regulatory decisions usually must be made with ambiguous and conflicting data. The panel’s point is that we should be prudent in such situations, rather than recklessly approving chemicals of uncertain effect.

The President’s Cancer Panel report will give a boost to Senator Feinstein’s efforts. It may also help the prospects of the Safe Chemicals Act, backed by Senator Frank Lautenberg and several colleagues, to improve the safety of chemicals on the market.

Some 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and they include Democrats and Republicans alike. Protecting ourselves and our children from toxins should be an effort that both parties can get behind — if enough members of Congress are willing to put the public interest ahead of corporate interests.

One reason for concern is that some cancers are becoming more common, particularly in children. We don’t know why that is, but the proliferation of chemicals in water, foods, air and household products is widely suspected as a factor. I’m hoping the President’s Cancer Panel report will shine a stronger spotlight on environmental causes of health problems — not only cancer, but perhaps also diabetes, obesity and autism.

This is not to say that chemicals are evil, and in many cases the evidence against a particular substance is balanced by other studies that are exonerating. To help people manage the uncertainty prudently, the report has a section of recommendations for individuals:

¶Particularly when pregnant and when children are small, choose foods, toys and garden products with fewer endocrine disruptors or other toxins. (Information about products is at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com or www.healthystuff.org.)

¶For those whose jobs may expose them to chemicals, remove shoes when entering the house and wash work clothes separately from the rest of the laundry.

¶Filter drinking water.

¶Store water in glass or stainless steel containers, or in plastics that don’t contain BPA or phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics). Microwave food in ceramic or glass containers.

¶Give preference to food grown without pesticides, chemical fertilizers and growth hormones. Avoid meats that are cooked well-done.

¶Check radon levels in your home. Radon is a natural source of radiation linked to cancer.

•

I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.