The WHO’s World Health Statistics
for 2012 highlighted how deaths due to noncommunicable diseases are on an
exponential rise. “Of the estimated 57 million global deaths in 2008, 36
million (63%) were due to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). Population growth
and increased longevity are leading to a rapid increase in the total number of
middle-aged and older adults, with a corresponding increase in the number of
deaths caused by NCDs. It is projected that the… annual cancer deaths [will]
increas[e] from 7.6 million to 13 million” (World Health Statistics). The World
Health Statistics also reported that second largest proportion of NCD deaths (21%)
are due to cancer. Cancer is a major health issue for the 21st
century. “In the 1930s, a woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer was 1 in 22.
In 2011 it is 1 in 8” (“Pink Ribbons, Inc).
“Pink Ribbons, Inc”, a documentary
that is based on based on the 2006 book Pink Ribbons, Inc: Breast Cancer and
the Politics of Philanthropy by Samantha King, raises questions on the
commercialism of breast cancer, how companies have begun to affiliate
themselves with a pink-ribbon, also known as “pink-washing,” in order to
increase profits and establish as positive public image while only contributing
a minute amount of the proceeds to the cause. Yoplait’s Pink Lids Saves Lives
campaign encourages consumers to take the pink lid off of the yogurt
containers, clean them, and then mail them back to the company. For every top
sent in, Yopliat will donate 10 cents to the cause. Simple, right? If you look
closely, and do a little math, you’ll discover that if you ate three cups of
yogurt everyday throughout the four months of the campaign, and sent in every
lid, Yoplait’s total contribution is $34.00. In 2002, American Express had
campaign that stated, “In the fight against breast cancer, every dollar
counts,” yet they only donated a penny for every purchase made between
September and December at participating stores. That means that if an American
Express card owner bought a $1,000 coat, or a pack of gum, American Express
only donated one penny. Jane Houlihan, the Environmental Working Group’s Senior
Vice President of Research explains how there are no federal safety standards
when it comes to cosmetics. Houlihan’s group has complied an online database of
products called Skin Deep, and their research has show how some Avon products
contain carcinogenic ingredients.
This documentary does a
satisfactory job of showing the various perceptions of the culture surrounding
breast cancer and the symbolism of the pink-ribbon that have risen due to the
commercialism of breast cancer.
The film interviews an “Ivy League”
support group in Austin, Texas for women diagnosed with Stage Four breast
cancer (Stage Four is the last stage, so these women are forced to adjust to
excepting the reality of death) who freely share their perceptions. The women
in the group express an utter disgust of the symbolism of pink-ribbons. A
member of the Ivy League stated that she was aware that people had good
intentions with the pink-ribbon, but that in the end, all they saw was the
pink-ribbon, and not the faces of the women who were “hurting and living” with
breast cancer.
Barbara Ehrenreich, a writer and
social critic who was treated for breast cancer in 2000 and 2001, expressed how
as she was going through chemotherapy, she was “completely baffled at the
language that said I was battling a disease. I wasn’t battling anything. I was
forcing myself to comply with the treatments that were recommended. I was
showing up for the chemotherapy sessions. Is that a battle?” The women who were
diagnosed with Stage Four breast cancer considered the terms such as “battling”
cancer to be condescending because it implies that those who lost the “battle”
are the losers. They lost their fight against cancer, which makes the women
feel as if they didn’t “try” hard enough, or failed in some aspect. Barbara
Ehrenreich also refuses to label herself as a “survivor” because she believes
it is a put down to those who did not survive, those who died from breast
cancer. The women with Stage Four breast cancer see the message as painful, and
that people are forgetting that they “can die in a perfectly healed state.”
The documentary also depicts the
perception that women who “battled” breast cancer and “won” embrace the culture
around the pink-ribbon. They make up the majority of the proud and enthusiastic
women who were interviewed at fundraising events such as Race for the Cure. They
actively label themselves as “survivors.” They believe in the ideas behind the
events such as Susan G. Komen’s Race for the Cure, Row for the Cure, Jump for
the Cause, Jump for Hope, Avon’s Walk for Breast Cancer. They believe that these
events deserve their money, time, and dedication. The group of people who
embrace the culture around the pink-ribbon also extends to the friends and
family of “survivors” and “battlers” who are there to support them. The support
group is attempting to do anything to overcome their feeling of helplessness in
the situation. These Americans have good intentions, and their willingness,
dedication, and passion to find a cure for breast cancer is accurately
portrayed. The millions of miles they willingly walked for a cure, and the millions
of dollars donated proves that Americans are attempting to actively participate
in ending this endemic.
Corporate philanthropy can have a
positive effect on diseases such as breast cancer, as long as corporations who
want to affiliate themselves with the pink-ribbon incorporate those values into
their everyday tasks. If they truly wanted to see the eradication of breast
cancer, they should remove all possible carcinogens from any and all of their
products, instead of creating a double standard. They should also support
research that aims to find the root cause of cancer and any preventable
measures. Currently corporations seek the pink-ribbon to increase their
profits, and that is where capitalism fails the health of the American public.
I do acknowledge that there are people within those corporations who truly care
about finding a cure to breast cancer, but the bottom line of those
corporations are to make a profit for their shareholders, not find a cure for
cancer. Barbara Ehrenreich claims that, “The effect of the whole pink-ribbon
culture was to drain and deflect the kind of militancy we had as women who were
appalled to have a disease that is epidemic, and yet we don’t even know the
cause of.”
Dr. Olufunmilayo Olopade (Director,
Cancer Risk Center, University of Chicago) claims that the most important risk
factor for developing breast cancer is being a woman. Dr. Susan Love, MD, the president of Dr.
Susan Love Research Foundation, worked as a surgeon for 20 years and noticed
that there wasn’t a significant progress when it came to treating cancer, what
she calls “slash, burn and poison,” which suggests that we do not understand
the disease. Love claims that only about 20-30% of women diagnosed with breast
cancer exhibits risk factors, and says how, “If we can only explain 20-30% of
breast cancer, then we don’t know what causes it. We are missing something
big.” Dr. Mhel Kavanaugh-Lynch, the director of the California Breast Cancer
Research Program, further adds how her team is currently exploring possible
environmental risk factors, but there are very few who conduct research in that
area. Janet Collins passionately advocates for an increase of research in
prevention. She claims that only 3-5% of all research funds goes to prevention.
The lack of preventative research and research that explores risk factors are
the current shortcomings of the commercialism of breast cancer.
The documentary exposes the
shockingly polar differences between the women with Stage Four breast cancer
and the “survivors,” including their support system. One group outright rejects
the culture surrounding breast cancer and the symbolism of the pink-ribbon
imposed by corporations and foundations. They believe that the wrong messages
are sent through this culture, and how the ugliness, and ruthlessness of breast
cancer is masked with a pretty pink-ribbon. On the other hand, there are women
who have “battled” their breast cancers and came out on top. Those living in
remission consider themselves “survivors” and proudly wear the pink-ribbons.
They embrace the runs, walks, and jumps for breast cancer, and they feel
welcomed in this community painted in pink. They are hopeful for finding a cure
for future generations, and they proudly invest their time and effort into
these grand events. These grand events amass millions of dollars, and yet only
about 3-5% of those donations go directly to prevention research. These funds
should be evenly distributed between researching future drugs/treatments,
prevention research, and research that will shed light on all possible risk
factors for breast cancer in order to impact this epidemic.
"World Health Statistics 2012." WHO. World Health Organization, 2012. Web.
Pink Ribbons, Inc. Dir. Lea Pool. Prod. Ravinda Din.
First Run Features, 2011. Film.
By: Cierra Leon Guerrero
I think this blog did an excellent job of pointing out how neo-liberalism and commercialism have influenced the ways in which we perceive and deal with issues of health. The author discusses how companies have affiliated themselves with the pink ribbon and therefore to donating money for breast cancer research. The blog further discusses that resulting from this is the fact that these companies have a large impact on how breast cancer is researched, which in turn helps to determine public perceptions and ideas surrounding this disease.
ReplyDeleteAs discussed by Anne Emanuelle Birn during her lecture at UW, this idea of philanthrocapitalism has many effects on how we perceive diseases and health, and not all of them are positive. A large part of why corporations run these pink ribbon campaigns is to increase their profits. Most of the money that goes to research from these campaigns is donated directly by individuals or indirectly by everyone in the form of tax breaks to the companies for their donations. The companies do however have a large say in how these monies are directed and what kind of research that it should go to. In directing who gets funding and who does not, they are able to influence our perceptions of breast cancer. Why is it that so much of the funding for breast cancer is directed towards finding a cure and not prevention?
Another way that this funneling of capital for research through businesses does is to influence the ways in which we discuss ideas about responsibility for ones’ own health. They discuss “battling” cancer and it leads us to believe that the success of treatment depends on how hard someone is trying to fight cancer. This ties in with certain ideas about personal responsibility inherent in neo-liberalism that includes managing health among other things. I don’t think there is a big conspiracy in which businesses are trying to completely structure how we think about illness and disease, but it seems that by tying the resources that we use to gain knowledge about diseases to capitalism and commercialism, we are connecting these ideas in ways that have real consequences to society. Why does being good at running a business mean that one is good at directing health care research? I think that part of this is connected to how we view businesses as efficient compared to government. Why is efficiency so important in health care? What other ideals are we giving up when we place efficiency as one of the most important aspects of health care? How does the framework that we have created that determines who is able to succeed in our market system connect to who has access to health and how we as a society should spend our combined resources on health problems? It seems to me that in the end it boils down to how we want to frame our ideas of health rights and responsibilities. The ways in which we perceive health are connected to and influenced by the ways in which we perceive many other things including political, economic and social ideologies and I think it is important to understand these connections and the realities that are created by them.
David Coomes
Cierra,
ReplyDeleteI like this topic because I think you tied in so many aspects of what we're learning in class. The pink ribbon campaign has always bothered me, starting from when they began to ask for a small donation at every grocery store checkout. First off, of course non-communicable diseases are on the rise across the world: it's because infectious diseases and other causes of death are on the decline! We are dying of cancer and other NCDs more often now because the other diseases just aren't getting us first. For example, all men will die of prostate cancer, guaranteed, unless something else kills them first. Every single one! Breast cancer is not exactly the same way for women, but as you said the primary risk factor is just being female. So when the CVS checkout computer asks me to donate money to an unnamed breast cancer cause like it's the right thing to do, I think that's asinine. Also, Susan G. Komen For the Cure's mission is "a world without breast cancer". Not possible.
Though I do think that we need to remember the near inevitability of cancer, I don't mean that we shouldn't research ways to reduce the suffering caused by cancer and prevent its development. This is where Susan G Komen For the Cure downright offends me: it doesn't fund much research at all relative to how much money it takes in. The foundation has a 27% overhead, which is bad. This means that they spend 27% of our donations on their own upkeep. This might sound reasonable because of course they need to pay their employees and everything, but this is extremely high for a charity. For example, Dr. Paul Farmer's charity, Partners in Health, only has a 6% overhead. Of the 73% of our donations that SKFC does spend on cancer most of it isn't on research. Only 20% of their spending is on research, and most of the rest is on public education. Public education is certainly incredibly important, but shouldn’t it then be Susan G Komen For Breast Cancer Education? The difference is in marketing.
The emphasis in the Pink campaign on fighting for a cure and how disparate this is from what they actually do shows how private philanthropy can be so dangerous. If you think breast cancer, you think pink, and this is a corporate message from a foundation that has proven it will say anything to continue making money. People donate to the cause thinking they are helping to find a cure for cancer when really that isn’t the case. And, as you said, women who are actually suffering from late stages of breast cancer don’t find the pink message helpful at all. I think it’s a double-edged sword because the whole pink thing has created a great deal of awareness and in many cases emotional support for those who are connected in some way to the cause. The problem comes from the fact that cancer is not a product, and marketing like it is one results in uninformed philanthropy and dehumanizing a disease. In the bigger picture, cancer is a human condition and it’s not something we will ever defeat just as we will never defeat death (hopefully no one will read this in like a hundred years and laugh at me because we achieved immortality by then).
Molly Reid