Posts tagged breast cancer
Posts tagged breast cancer
If you don’t know much about the history of the pink ribbon, or the massive cause marketing facets it has, then you need to watch this film.
The fight against breast cancer has been depoliticised. Pushes from pharma companies to produce a “cure”, combined with corporate links with fundraising campaigns, have fundamentally shifted the debate and public awareness of the disease.
History of the ribbon: corporate appropriation
The Guardian covered this in their recent article Cancer’s not pink:
The pink ribbon was originally orange. Conceived in 1990 by Charlotte Haley, a 68-year-old American, it was a grassroots protest against the fact that only 5% of the US National Cancer Institute’s budget was going towards cancer prevention.
When Estée Lauder asked to use the logo for a breast-cancer awareness campaign, Haley wanted nothing to do with it, saying she had no wish for them to use the ribbon as she felt it was too commercial. So the company changed the colour to pink, because research identified it as the most non-threatening, soothing colour – everything a cancer diagnosis isn’t.
Estee Lauder threatened Charlotte with their vast squad of lawyers, and then just evaded the legalities by slightly changing the colour.
From the start, a symbol tainted by corporate appropriation.
Cause marketing: framing it nice
Charities like Susan G Komen for the Cure (recently famous for their decision to not back Planned Parenthood) are largely responsible for the links between breast cancer fundraising and corporate cause marketing i.e. ‘buy this and part of the profits go to a good cause’.
The bottom line is that these companies only enter these partnerships because they are lucrative.
To be an effective sales tool, breast cancer needs to be portrayed as beatable. Positivity and reassurance mean that the more you buy, the more you’re helping is the dominant philosophy.
An off-shoot problem is that the focus on positivity is that it:
- creates a frame of ‘the more I fight the more likely I am to succeed’, which promotes victim-blaming when it fails e.g. “oh you should have eaten more green veg”;
- implies all breast cancer is always treatable and beatable;
- softens something ugly and difficult, and invalidates the very valid feelings of anger people have.
This sanitising from corporate links took the teeth out of the growing movement pushing for prevention rather than a “cure”, and shifted focus from preventative options.
“It’s not a conspiracy, it’s business as usual”
Popular focus on the disease being beatable on one level encourages the quick fix self-help ideas you hear in the papers: “eat more fruit and veg”, “do more exercise”, etc.
What most people don’t know is that only 20-30% of breast cancer is caused by known risk factors. However, publicising this would undermining the public perception of the disease being manageable, and thus undermine the potential profits from cause marketing.
This focus on a cure encourages an atmosphere of medicalisation, even when that’s not necessarily beneficial for patients. 85% of funding goes towards cures in the form of pills that may only increase life expectancy by a small amount. Only 15% goes towards prevention of the disease - a far less lucrative market.
Of the money going to prevention, only a third is going towards investigating environmental causes for breast cancer. Another problem with corporate links: cause-marketing companies are ‘helping the cause’ whilst profiting from products that cause breast cancer.
A few quick examples: the estrogenic plastics used in Ford’s manufacturing; the rBGH growth hormone in dairy products (Yoplait); the fact that only 20% of ingredients in cosmetics have had any safety checks (Estee Lauder, Revlon). All these companies engage in breast cancer cause marketing.
The sad fact is that this is an inherent problem with corporate engagement in fundraising.
Not even touched on the fact that most research studies focus on white middle class women because those are the ones with buying power for cause-marketing products, or the globalisation of pinkwashing (using the social licence from breast cancer campaigning to operate in places like the middle east by the US after Iraq war).
Pink Ribbons Inc. by Dr Susan Love is the book the film is based on
Welcome to Cancerland, an article by Barbara Ehrenreich
Breast Cancer Action do some great work in the US e.g. the Think Before You Pink campaign
big shout-out to Human Rights Watch for screening the film!
This is a good and important subject.
I’m not a big fan of the commercialization of breast cancer research.
I do want to point out one thing though. Breast Cancer went from being one of the most devastating forms of cancer to one of the most curable largely because of the fundraising and publicity brought to this particular form of cancer. Here’s a quick look at the improved survival rates
For local disease, the number of women alive at 10 years rose from 55.0% in the first decade of the study period when radiation therapy was the mainstay of treatment to 86.1% by 1995-2004 (P<0.0001 for trend).
For regional disease with skin or lymph node involvement, 10-year survival improved from a dismal 16.2% to 74.1% over the same period (P<0.0001 for trend).
Even for those who presented with cancer disseminated to distant sites, improvements were seen from 3.3% alive at 10 years among those seen in 1944 to 1954 up to 22.2% by 1995-2004, again a significant trend at P<0.0001.
Other kinds of cancer, such as Ovarian cancer, have not improved so significantly. There hasn’t been a new drug for Ovarian in something like 15 years.
All the fundraising and activism does have an effect, a serious one. So I’m a little uncomfortable with some of the things quoted above about too much funding going to “cures in the form of pills”. People, those pills are the reason that breast cancer is a survivable disease. Pills like Tamoxifen and Herceptin allow people with the worst forms of breast cancer who might have been given 3-4 months to live to go on living their life for many more months, years, even a decade after that. To the person who now gets to see their 40th birthday or watch their kid graduate high school, that’s a big fucking deal. Actually complaining about that smacks of anti-medical paranoia that I’m really wary of right now.
Here’s the real problem: the whole reason we need fundraising and activism is that the government does not provide enough funding for medical research. If we had the funding structure to do the research that’s really needed for ALL forms of cancer, we wouldn’t need individual funding efforts like Susan Komen with all of the attendant problems that leaving research to corporations and semi-shady foundations brings.
Other than that I fully agree with the critiques about cause marketing and linking products to breast cancer fundraising.
I NEED TO SEE THIS
Susan G. Komen has pulled all money for breast exams for what they say is because of a congressional investigation.. but it seems more like they were bombarded by conservative political pro-life groups. From the women who made breast cancer pink and frilly and for woman only “who want to save as many lives as they can” to pulling crucial funds for preventative LIFE-SAVING breast exams because sometimes Planned Parenthood provides an abortion of a clump of cells and thinks there’s nothing wrong with having some safe sex.
Before you read this you should know I am 110% about getting rid of all cancer and breast cancer especially.
But what is the deal with trying to sex up breast cancer awareness? It really bothers me, I can deal with the ribbons being pink because this cancer does almost entirely affects only women (and of course since the beginning of time women love pink!) but when we start sexing up cancer awareness I draw the line.
Jezebel recently wrote an article on “‘Saving Second Base’ Campaign Sexes Up Breast Cancer (Again)”
Is this really the way we’re going to let breast cancer awareness be raised? I am all for the NFL wearing pink ribbons and pink cleats and pink gloves and that is the way to do it. The idea of “OH MY SHIT, WHY ARE ALL OF THE FAMOUS MEN ON THIS FIELD WEARING PINK? SHOCKING” is something I am okay with. But “Saving Second Base” ? I just cannot stand for it. Sexualizing a disease that 98% (okay that’s not scientifically accurate but I don’t know the number and I’m sure it is close) of the victims of this disease are women is NOT OKAY. It infuriates me.
It’s called Breast Cancer, not Tit Cancer, not Over-the-Shoulder-Boulder-Holder cancer, it’s BREAST CANCER!
Don’t even get me started on the “I Heart <3 Boobies” bracelets that 75% of my state was & are wearing. Let’s objectify women in a immature way while the company donates an unknown percentage of the money you spent on that bracelet to breast cancer. Bracelets at $3.99 a piece and you only donated $100,000 to Breast Cancer research?
Wear a pink ribbon versus an “I Heart Boobies” or “Save the Ta-tas” a company that doesn’t have any trouble objectifying women, being insensitive to those who have indeed lost their breasts to this disease and making light of a life threatening disease is NOT a company any of you should be buying from! Marketing immature statements about a disease isn’t helping anyone with breast cancer. THINK SMART LADIES AND GENTS! Do some research about companies who actually donate more than 5% of their gross income to research and charity.
AND ALSO PLEASE NOT ONLY SINCE IT’S OCTOBER BUT FOR ALL FEMINISTS SAKE DO A SELF BREAST EXAM THIS MONTH! We all know breast cancer can strike every race and age!