WTH?! Wednesdays: Pinkwashing Hall of Fame

Now that we're seeing pink ribbons literally adorning everything, I've become acutely aware of them when I'm out shopping and doing things. They're everywhere. They're multiplying, it seems, and can be found on the strangest of items.

This Pinterest board is worth sharing, as it highlights the absurdities and questionable practices surrounding the breast cancer awareness campaigns. One thing is quite clear: whether they donate to research or not, it's an industry - a marketing ploy that gets you to feel better about spending money. I wonder, what do cancer victims and survivors think of that? That someone is basically making money off of their disease? Has anyone ever asked them or are they just "bitching?"

This election cycle we're constantly hearing about the "war on women." I argue that there are many of them being waged, some silently, some not so much, and this is just one of them. Because it won't take long before someone criticizes your "poor attitude" in questioning the ethics of raising money for cancer awareness, or where the money really goes. If you dare question it, you're unfriended, blocked, criticized, told to "get a life" because you want to show what real awareness looks like: maybe a recovering mastectomy patient, not someone decked out in pink and white and prettied up for the cameras. It seems to be the one real truth no one wants to see.

One thing that really makes me shake my head are the campaigns to raise awareness that are from products that can actually raise your risk of cancer. Some of the companies responsible for donating millions (hey, good for them!) are also simultaneously marketing products that are putting their very user at risk for the disease. Go figure. Here's a short list:

Nestle has donated probably gagillions of money (Ok, I don't have a source for that LOL) towards breast cancer awareness and research, yet is only "phasing out" the cancer-causing plasticizer BPA from their water bottles. While I don't necessarily fault them for that, I do fault them for their long-standing heavy marketing of infant formula to mothers who are either in vulnerable populations or just being part and parcel of convincing otherwise capable women that breastmilk is inferior. You can slap the words "breast is best, but...." on your container a hundred times, but it doesn't help. Guilty of sending in official-looking "milk nurses" into poor African nations, Nestle effectively 'hooked' mothers on the stuff and had them believing their own milk was inferior. Not only would their breastmilk then dry up, but they'd be forced to buy more of the product they had no money to buy, and reconstitute it with contaminated water, leading to sickness and even death of the baby.

While only recently has the link been made to breastfeeding and cancer prevention, the health benefits to both mother and baby have been well-established. The presence they and their counterparts had (and continue to have) in influencing cultural trends and thus destroying any chance of a successful breastfeeding relationship could very well have lead to increasing cancer rates among women for decades.

Exposure to cleaning products is one plausible link to breast cancer, according to some studies. When you think about it, females are generally more likely to be in more direct contact with these products, and for longer periods of time (no offense to guys who clean). It's reasonable to suggest that products can also be leached into the bloodstream and can affect the offspring of their users as well. Have you ever looked on a bottle of cleaning solution? The ingredients are usually not listed - either because there wouldn't be enough room on the label, or they're too scary to think about.

Many of the products that contain known carcinogens are manufactured by companies that donate heavily to breast cancer awareness and research. One marketing ploy I find kind of annoying is how many of these products are geared towards women - even though yes, men do clean, and men do get breast cancer. A pink mop or Swiffer? Pink dishwashing gloves? Gee, thanks a lot.

The cleaning aisle at Walmart was awash (no pun intended) with a sea of pink ribbons, mops, dusters and other garbage. As far as I could tell, when I looked closely for the "We donate money to the cause" disclaimer, there was nothing on the label - or on Swiffer's website - that indicated any money went towards breast cancer anything of any kind. Not surprising.

The chemical industry also produces plasticizers that have known feminizing agents in them, that have been in use for decades. Plastic wraps, containers that are re-heated again and again and leach into your food, as well as agents in shampoos, makeup, personal care products, children's toys  and baby bottles are also points of controversy, and many of these byproducts would be found in the bloodstream of just about anyone - including unborn children.

Photo credit: USAToday, 10/5/2010

The alcohol industry has also been quick to jump on the bandwagon, but not without notice. Many are questioning that one, since studies have shown that alcohol consumption can be a risk factor in the disease. The image above angered some cancer survivors, and I can see why. Another article from CNN with the headline "Buy a bottle, save a breast" irked others who felt - and I agree - that we're focusing more on the breast than the person attached to it.

The sex industry seems to be the most recent player in the "awareness" game. Although I can't prove it anymore, this image was taken last year from the "Save the Boobies" breast cancer "awareness" fan page on Facebook, but when I went back to look for it, it had been taken down. This is their idea of a "breast exam."

The porn industry has graciously? donated a penny per view of their breast-related content towards breast cancer awareness, but I argue that really the only thing we're aware of is breasts. Not the illness itself, the risk factors or prevention techniques, not the reality of it at all, but simply breasts. It's another way to use controversial, if not completely offensive images, slogans and questionable marketing ploys to get people to support a feel-good cause. It goes much further to damage any real awareness, though, because we are so used to seeing images like this one in public - yet one very good way to lower your risk is to breastfeed, which no one wants to see you do. With the combination efforts of the infant formula industry and overt sexualization of the breast, an important preventative measure has now been nearly quashed.

Using cutesy slogans like "boobies," "tits," "hooters" and other sexualized euphemisms is equally offensive, in my opinion, because it not only sounds degrading and juvenile, but tends to make light of a very serious, often debilitating, disfiguring and deadly disease that can devastate entire families. I know we can't all be serious all the time, but I think because we often see too much of this kind of "advocacy" we don't take it seriously enough.

The food industry is equally guilty of just slapping a ribbon on things and calling it "good." I can't even begin to detail the chemicals and other crap we're ingesting every day, meal after meal for years, that likely contributes to breast cancer (if not a whole host of other cancers). Some additives actually have estrogen-like qualities and therefore could contribute directly to estrogen-fed cancers. Of course some foods have naturally-occuring estrogen-like properties (soy, for instance).

It's impossible to pinpoint so we use terms like "could" and "probably," because there are so many factors it might be impossible to tell for sure. But just in reading the list of ingredients, you know it can't be all that good, can it?

Ultimately there is so much we don't know, at least for now. I don't want to come off as a complete wacko conspiracy theorist, but even these obvious links should be enough to make you wonder where we get our information from, and make us question the motives of people and companies who want us to think we're helping for a good cause. Questions we should ask ourselves before we "think pink" include:
1. Does this product contribute to cancer in some way?
2. Does this product or slogan objectify the breast and women in general?
3. Is my money even going to the cause?
4. How much money is this group actually donating to research? To raising "true" awareness?
5. Does this campaign, slogan or product do more to hurt cancer victims and survivors than actually help them?

More reading:
Buying pink may not mean what you think - YouTube
Seven controversial pink products for breast cancer awareness

Assessing risk

If several members of your family had died from breast cancer, would you want to know if you carried the breast cancer gene or not? What if you were only 18 years old?

That is the scenario described with this British family - 18-year-old Josie is facing whether or not she wants to know, based on the fact that both her grandmother and her great-great-grandmother died of breast cancer. Her mother already had a double mastectomy as a preventative measure.

I have heard of others doing this before - even in the absence of actual cancer - and while I can't necessarily blame them, I feel that it's a bit premature. It saddens me, almost, because to me it means they're living their lives in fear. Trying to cross a bridge they haven't even come to yet, or might not, ever in their lives.

Risk is not always absolute.

Although there is some family history, it's not like it was her mother, her grandmother, and all her aunts. A great-great-grandmother, while lurking in the background, is not really considered an immediate family member. As someone pointed out on my FaceBook page, one thing can really lower that risk: breastfeeding. Did this girl's mother breastfeed her? I don't know exact breastfeeding rates for 18 years ago when she was born, but if they follow current "trends" I'd have to guess that no, she didn't. Was her mother breastfed? Based on the photograph, I'd say she's maybe in her mid-50's. Breastfeeding was on the verge of being abysmally low then, what with the introduction of milk substitutes and hospitals taking a very aggressive stance against nursing. (Although this family is from the UK - where breastfeeding rates are the lowest of all Europe.)

I have to wonder - if part of that fear instilled in her about the possibility of cancer hasn't been part of her own mother's fears transferred to her. Growing up with a mom who had a preventative mastectomy can't be easy to ignore; breasts are therefore seen as weapons of mass destruction rather than a source of nourishment, comfort or pleasure. The idea of being gripped by fear over the possible results of a blood test is like letting those results - real or perceived - rule your life. This girl has dreams and plans of doing things and yet is already acting like she's been diagnosed.

One thing Josie has on her side is technology, and studies that tell her certain things that perhaps they didn't tell her grandmother: that breastfeeding - both just doing it to begin with and for a longer period of time overall - can greatly reduce her risk of getting cancer. That just because she might have the gene, that still doesn't mean that she will get cancer. That even if she does get cancer, there are much less invasive treatment methods that can save the breast. That only a small percentage - maybe between 5-10 percent - of breast and ovarian cancers are inherited. That a portion of breast cancers are a result of hormone replacement therapy and are estrogen-fed tumors. Does that mean her mother went through a double mastectomy for nothing? Maybe.

One side note: Many breast cancer advocacy groups want to increase awareness, both of risk factors and ways to prevent it. Unfortunately, long-term breastfeeding - or nursing at all - doesn't often make the list, which is troubling.

A dear friend of mine died several years ago after a long battle with breast cancer. I don't know that she had any family history, but she originally got breast cancer at age 40, back in the early 1980s. There weren't many options available then, so her choice was a radical mastectomy of the affected breast. Over the next few decades, she fought cancer at least three more times, eventually succumbing. Why? Because they detected the original cancer from the breast - more than 20 years later - in her uterus. What does that mean? That even with a mastectomy, the breast cancer can still kill you. Then what?

I would argue that my friend crossed that bridge when she came to it - rather than systematically removing body parts to ostensibly lower her risk, she lived her life as well as she could in the midst of everything. She enjoyed her children and her grandchildren. She enjoyed an amazing support system of friends and family. But she did not live her life in fear.

One thing I have to wonder: what does a surgeon do when a woman so wracked with fear and emotion comes into his office demanding a double mastectomy? Does he educate her about her risk factors? Does he tell her no, because there is a chance she might not even get cancer? Does he do it anyway, figuring she'll just find a surgeon who will? I don't know what Josie's mom's doctor told her, because maybe some of those things weren't as fully understood as they are now. But I do know what Josie's doctor should be telling her - and saving her from the fear that has controlled her mother's life and now is about to control hers, if she lets it.

Dr. Amy Tutuer likes to argue that, as far as matters of childbirth and pregnancy, women cannot fully understand risk. She basically makes women sound helpless and stupid, as if they are incapable of coming to any conclusion on their own. I argue that while they may not all be doctors and surgeons, they can understand - if counseled properly, and adequately, by their doctors, as well as encouraged to do their own research. How can you come to a rational decision when you're thinking irrationally? When not all the facts are presented, or are falsely misrepresented, how can you make the best choice? It may be too late for her mother to change things, but it isn't too late for Josie.

More reading:
Breast cancer risk: Should I have a BRCA gene test? 
Preventative mastectomy doesn't benefit most, study finds

Deflating the "Save the boobies!" campaign

The other day my oldest sat next to a kid wearing a "Save the Boobies" bracelet for Breast Cancer Awareness. Aside from the fact that yeah, I kind of want to keep my beloved child as pure as possible for as long as I can LOL (I know, a daunting task) it struck me how sexualized the very nature of this campaign is.

Sure, it grabs attention. But attention to what?

I've passed those cars on the freeway with a cartooned version of two breasts on the back or whatever it is. All in the name of breast cancer awareness. But I think they have missed their mark, in a big way, and it is to the detriment of those who want to also promote breastfeeding awareness and how important it is (for several reasons!).

While there is already ongoing battle over the "proper" use of breasts in our society, this one seems to be a virtual tug of war between two advocacy groups, and one is definitely gaining more traction than the other - and trampling on the others' ideals at the same time.

Raising awareness about breast cancer is certainly important, but two things bother me: how most awareness sites mention nothing about how breastfeeding can lower risk among certain groups, and how sexualized some campaigns to raise awareness is.

It's perfectly okay to make off-the-cuff remarks about "boobies," but the minute you are seen nursing your child in public you are the target of public scrutiny. You can sit next to someone on an airplane wearing a tight t-shirt emblazoned with "Save the Boobies!" in huge letters and people might smirk, but won't take issue with it because "it's for a good cause, after all. I guess I can live with that." But if you're nursing a child on that plane, giving your little one the best milk nature can make, as well as reducing your chances of breast cancer all at the same time, you're virtually vilified and treated like an outcast.

As if that wasn't bad enough, now in some areas nursing a child past the age of two is considered a "crime." In a suburb of Atlanta, the city has passed an ordinance that makes publicly nursing a two-year-old fall under the umbrella of "public nudity." 

Forest Park's attorney said the law isn't about breastfeeding. He said it's about stopping the crime that surrounds other forms of public indecency.

Because I'm sure you know that so many women are so willing to get naked in public that they just grab up any old toddler they can and nurse them as a way of legitimizing showing their breasts off. Right? Sounds perfectly reasonable.

The ordinance, however, states that exceptions to the rule include:

children under the age of ten, legitimate live performances like plays, and breastfeeding any child under age two. 

Legitimate live performances, huh? I'm sure the debate over what's "legitimate" is questionable, and because of everyone's differing opinions on what's acceptable, they won't touch that one with a ten-foot pole.

With the eye-catching shock value of "save the boobies!" it only furthers the sexualized nature of breasts and completely illegitimizes what their primary focus should be: to feed a baby (or toddler).

Interestingly, another site (that I think is affiliated with the Save the Boobies crap but can't really tell) is telling you to "bare all for breast cancer." I will never know for sure, though, because guess what: my internet filter blocks it as "nudity."

When I went to the Save the Boobies FaceBook fan page, the first thing that came up were women in bikinis, a woman with very large, probably very fake, breasts giving herself an "exam" (which looked more like soft porn than anything else), and some close-ups of women with large chests. One person even commented,

"All of the boobies in this album are fake, saving boobies is about the real ones. How about some love for those?"

I agree. (Apparently two other people did, too.)

Apparently this is
someone's idea of
a breast exam.
From the Save the
Boobies FaceBook
fan page. 

Just based on the content of this page, I think their motives are anything but altruistic and appear self-serving, at best. Many of the photos posted on the page feature close-ups of cleavage and women in suggestive poses. And I'm sure if I commented on her page, I'd get lambasted by the tons of people who comment on the site that are only there to see one thing. And it's clear that FaceBook, and society in general, have no problem with seeing naked breasts plastered all over the place, but if you attach a baby to that breast, it's "public nudity."

Isn't this the very thing breastfeeding women and advocates are trying to avoid, and educate others about?!

A few months ago I was shopping at Jo-Ann Fabrics and noticed one of those Nurture Nest nursing pillows that you can cover yourself. At the bottom, in tiny print, was something like, "All proceeds benefit Breast Cancer research." I thought, "Are you kidding me?!"

When I did a search on the National Breast Cancer Foundation's website for "breastfeeding" I got this answer: "Your search did not return any results." So why is the maker of a breastfeeding pillow willing to send money to an organization that clearly wants to distance itself completely from breastfeeding? I'm not sure who manufactures it, but it seems clear that really they're only donating money because it's the cool, "in" thing to do.

According to some studies, women who have a family history of breast cancer can lower their risk substantially just by breastfeeding. How is it that popular breast cancer advocacy groups don't know this, or won't mention it?

In my opinion, I believe they dance around the topic because of one thing: they don't want to offend those women who either "can't," won't or have trouble breastfeeding. Women who work, have difficulty or whatever the reason constantly beat themselves up over it, and sometimes pro-nursing advocates tend to be a little harsh in their approach. That said, no one here seems to be telling women one thing they should know: that your risk can be greatly reduced.

Perhaps those women who feel scrutinized should grow thicker skin; I don't know. Perhaps they should be more educated from nurses, doctors and lactation consultants just how important it is, but that it doesn't make you a "bad mother" if you tried and it didn't work. While I can't understand those who just don't want to and never really made an effort, I can't help but wonder if our totally messed up view of nursing is largely contributing to their reasons for not wanting to, and I find that unacceptable. All I know is, people like the Susan G. Komen Foundation and others don't want to get involved in a mommy wars battle, doing us all a great disservice.

Approaching it in a loving but educated way is probably the best solution, but ignoring the benefits - or making them seem dirty and sensual - might send more at-risk women to the grave than they realize.

More reading:
It takes nerve to breastfeed in public. Time to get out the mummy-guns
Susan G. Komen for the Cure isn't curing anything - Just West of Crunchy, one of my favorite blogs
Best for Babes