A recent Daily Finance article details the hurdles consumers must overcome to ensure that two cents of their pink-packaged Swiffer purchase actually reach the cause the pink box implies:
according to a Procter & Gamble spokeswoman, the company will only make a two-cent donation to the National Breast Cancer Foundation if a consumer uses a coupon from Procter & Gamble's brand saver coupon book, which was distributed in newspapers on Sept. 27. Without the coupon, the limited-edition pink packaging on the Swiffer is simply designed to draw awareness to the cause.Though concerns about corporate exploitation of breast cancer awareness campaigns may be unsurprising given their profitability--studies cited in Kris Frieswick's "Sick of Pink" indicate cause-related marketing allows companies both to move more products and to do so at an often higher profit margin--the inconsistent use of the pink ribbon speaks to a more troubling problem of accountability.
While the Susan G. Komen Foundation does own a trademarked pink ribbon symbol whose use they oversee (but with some negligence, as Frieswick exposes), stores contain many products with pink coloring and "generic" pink ribbons whose producers are not bound to the same legal checkmarks. Thus packaging emblazoned with a pink ribbon can mean any number of things for a purchase: donations to breast cancer research, donations to breast cancer research until a cap is reached, donations to breast cancer research if a coupon is used or the product is purchased by a certain date, or no donation toward research at all--just the promotion of raised awareness toward the cause.
Consumer confidence may be on the up, but such a deceptive practice cannot brushed aside. Indeed, perhaps defining the pink ribbon and regulating its use should be next battle in the transparency movement, following the recent decision that requires bloggers to disclose received gifts to their readers and the cries that moved Bank of America and JPMorganChase to make overdraft policies clearer. Though companies certainly have the right to employ marketing strategies that bank on consumer enthusiasm for philanthropy, consumers also have a right to know if, where, and how much of their purchase supports the cause its packaging purports.
I am a medical anthropologist and breast cancer researcher. The biggest problem is that the link between breast cancer and the excessive wearing of tightly fitting bras is being ignored and suppressed by the Komen Foundation, ACS, NIH, and NCI.
These "leaders" in the breast cancer world refuse to do any research on the bra/cancer link, despite several studies that show bras are causing breast cancer. No research has been done to disprove the link.
FYI, bras are tight by their very design and purpose (to alter breast shape). The pressure the bra exerts on the breast tissue impairs the flow of the easily compressed lymphatic system that drains the tissue of fluid, debris, and toxins, and is the circulatory pathway of the immune system. Over time the fluid builds up (causing cysts, pain and tenderness), and toxins accumulate within the tissue. Ultimately, this can lead to cancer.
Our research, discussed in our book, Dressed To Kill:The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, has shown that the longer and tighter a woman wears a bra, the greater her chances of developing breast cancer. A woman who wears a bra 24/7 has a 3 in 4 chance of developing b.c., while a bra-free woman has the same chances of getting this disease as a man.
Bras have been shown to cause headaches, backaches, nerve damage, skin depigmentation, digestive trouble, breast pain, cysts, and cancer. And several studies support the bra/cancer theory. And yet, the leaders of the breast cancer industry refuse to seriously consider the issue, and they say bras do not cause breast cancer without any evidence to support their assertion.
Why the cover-up? Breast cancer, as you can see, is a big business. There is lots of money made in the sale of drugs to "prevent" this disease, in the detection (mammograms) and treatment of this disease, and in the sale of lingerie that helps create this disease.
The public is being kept in the dark on this vital bra/cancer connection, while the public generously donates to these agencies keeping them in the dark.
The medical industry also realizes how ridiculous, incompetent, and negligent they will look for deliberately ignoring and censoring the impact of bras on breast disease. It puts into question all breast cancer research that failed to consider this important factor. It's like researching foot disease while ignoring tight shoes, or studying lung disease while ignoring cigarette smoking.
And the lingerie industry is frightened of class action lawsuits. For years, bra manufacturers have suspected underwire bras may have been causing breast cancer. Now, the bra industry is telling women they are wearing their bras too tightly, blaming the victim for wearing a constrictive device that harms the breasts. The industry is now warning women to get properly fitted bras. Of course, they don't explain how a push up bra can be properly fitted, since it is designed to be constrictive.
It took 30 years for the tobacco/cancer connection to get the attention it deserves. It has now been 15 years since the bra/cancer link has been announced, and this link is greater than the tobacco/cancer link. I suppose it will take another 15 years until the self-serving interests that control the cancer industry have to deal with the bra issue.
Meanwhile, I strongly recommend all women try their own "self study" and try going bra-free for one month. Nature did not create the human female breast to need 20th century lingerie for support. Women with breast cysts and pain will feel improvement within weeks, if not days, as they end the constriction of the breasts by the bra. They will also be doing the best thing they can to prevent breast cancer. See more at our website www.SelfStudyCenter.org.
Great article and well worth the read! With all of pink ribbons, pink armbands and shoes, jackets, phones, calculators and pink kitchen appliances, how do you know that your money is being donated back to that cause or into the pockets of corporate sponsors to sell their products? Cancer Survivors are most concerned about this since they are the ones haunted with these marketing efforts every October to support “pink” once again. With all do respect, I do believe that various companies are truly out there to help raise awareness and donate a large portion of their funding back to breast cancer. Unfortunately there are some companies that could be donating less than it appears funds raised for breast cancer. This month if you are looking for more out of the box methods to help in the fight this cancer battle I recommend investing in breast cancer. You don’t have to spend your life savings when you invest but a couple hundred dollars can help along a treatment get through the FDA trials and patent process all for a good cause. http://breastcancerinvesting.com
After all of that time spent in PhD rograms I am unclear whether or not you actually received one.
Oh my God in Heaven. I do not want to pay more government employees to dream up more government regulations because Kerry Golds got a bee in her bonnet about a Swiffer.
Sidney Ross Singer: After all of that time spent in PhD rograms I am unclear whether or not you actually received one.
Chris-
Your comment is terse and not particularly funny. Although you seem to disagree with Sydney, you don't offer any reasons. She has clearly put time into researching this and probably knows more about the effect of bras then you do. All well Chris, your post is not the first time someone has been abusive on the internet.
Adrian,
She is a he but I can see you've done your homework. I was looking for information on the above research and came across unanswered questions. All well Adrian, you can't believe everyting you read on the internet.
Two Choices:
Choice #1:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33213581/ns/today-today_health/
Choice #2: http://www.youtube.com/watchv=i9qejUElQKw&feature=channel_page
Choice #2 is perhaps somewhat of an over simplification of things – because cancer can be and generally is, the result of many contributing factors over a long period of time. Nonetheless, the second link provides a second choice that is rarely mentioned in the US media.
There is another approach, which is to ask questions before you buy anything pink. Think Before You Pink (www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org), a project of Breast Cancer Action (www.bcaction.org), has been urging consumers to be more thoughtful -- and the companies to be more transparent and accountable -- since 2002. See the questions at
http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?page_id=13
I am so grateful for the details exposed in this article as well as the information provided in the comment by Sydney Ross Singer. As a professional in holistic health, and having had a benign tumor removed when I was only 18 (with no family history), I am very passionate about this topic.
Unfortunately, numerous companies who claim to support women's health are the same companies that undermine it. They knowingly use chemicals in their household goods, cleaning products and personal care/beauty products that have been linked to a range of serious health problems, including cancer. The public is being horribly manipulated and that is why I refuse to do most of the breast cancer walks. It's time, instead, to vote with our purchasing power by supporting holistic companies and values.
Additionally, women have been so conditioned to rely on bras that I think we need more solutions (and transitional steps) besides not wearing them. I recommend that if women are going to wear underwire bras that they remove the wires by cutting a small slit on each side and pulling them out. They'll still get the shape they want without interfering with the lymphatic system as much.
Overall, Americans need to eat more whole foods, especially organic, learn about the connection between our health and sustainability, reduce their exposure to toxins and be proactive with removing toxins from their system through safe and effective cleansing methods.
Lastly, if you want to financially support women's health, donating to programs that focus on early detection and free screenings, as well as environmental groups, is probably the most effective and compassionate way (bypassing gruesome animal testing) to make a difference. Here's to everyone's health!