Frequntly Asked Questions About Think Before You Pink

How can consumers decide whether to buy a particular product marketed to raise money for the cause?

Breast Cancer Action suggests consumers ask themselves a few critical questions:

  • How much money actually goes to the cause? For instance, Yoplait donates ten cents for every pink yogurt lid mailed back to the company. American Express has given one cent per purchase (of any amount), meaning a shopper would have to make 100 purchases to raise one dollar for the cause. In some cases it seems to make more sense to write a check directly to a breast cancer organization instead.
  • How are the funds being raised? Is it through products that contain chemicals associated with the disease? Is it a tournament on a golf course sprayed with pesticides?
  • Who gets the money? Many campaigns make a vague promise that the proceeds will go toward “the fight against breast cancer.” If you can’t tell who benefits—or if you can but don’t think the organization does important work—reconsider the purchase.
  • What types of programs are being supported? Programs supporting “breast cancer awareness” aren’t likely to bring us any closer to stemming the rising rates of the disease. It’s time to move past awareness, toward true prevention.

If campaign sponsors don’t make this information available—or if consumers don’t like the answers they get—we encourage them to contact the company to explain their concerns.

Why would Breast Cancer Action criticize programs that raise money for breast cancer organizations?

We’re not opposed to companies raising money for the cause. But we’re concerned about what appears to be a trend of companies claiming to support the fight against breast cancer while using or producing toxins that may increase a person’s risk of developing the disease.

What does Breast Cancer Action want consumers to do?

As far as cosmetics companies are concerned, consumers can support companies that manufacture products free of phthalates and parabens by purchasing their products. They can urge other cosmetics companies to elimimate their use of phthalates and to research alternatives to parabens. (They can also join Breast Cancer Action’s work to urge the Avon corporation to consider the feasibility of removing certain chemicals from its products.)

Consumers can urge any company that claims to support the fight against breast cancer to avoid using or producing compounds that may be linked to the development of the disease.

Shouldn’t companies at least be commended for donating some of their profits to a good cause? Isn’t giving some money to a breast cancer organization better than doing nothing?

“Not so bad” is not good enough. While the interest in breast cancer fundraising is encouraging, we often have no idea how much these companies are raising or how it’s being spent. What happens to the money that does make it to the cause? Is it doing anything worthwhile for women with, or at risk for, breast cancer?

Many millions of dollars are raised every year to advance the fight against breast cancer—by nonprofits and corporations alike—but breast cancer rates climb year after year.

Many organizations currently fund cancer research, including government agencies (such as the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and private foundations (such as the Susan G. Komen Foundation and Estee Lauder’s Breast Cancer Research Foundation), not to mention pharmaceutical companies. This level of interest and energy is encouraging, but their work is not coordinated in any way. Research conducted by a drug company in California could be the same as a study conducted by a research hospital in New York or a nonprofit agency in Atlanta. There is no system in place for making sure that research efforts move us forward toward effective treatments and true prevention, or even that current research efforts complement each other. (Read more about this problem.)

As long as consumers think they’re doing something meaningful about breast cancer by participating in cause-related marketing campaigns, the real work that needs to be done around treatment, access to care, and true prevention will continue to be under-funded and ignored.

What’s meant by “pinkwashing”?

The pink ribbon has become an icon for breast cancer awareness, because pink is the quintessential color of femininity. Companies use the color pink and the pink ribbon to paint themselves female-friendly. “Pinkwashing” is a term used critically of corporate campaigns and practices in which the sponsoring companies position themselves as leaders in the struggle to eradicate breast cancer while engaging in practices that may be contributing to rising rates of the disease. Read about the history of the pink ribbon...

Why are you targeting cosmetics companies?

These are good examples of corporations that use breast cancer to boost sales, yet manufacture products that may be contributing to rising rates of the disease. To promote their image among female consumers, several major cosmetics companies have launched cause-related marketing campaigns around breast cancer—but a number of their products contain parabens (chemical preservatives) and phthalates, chemicals that disrupt normal hormone function when absorbed into the body. Studies suggest a possible link between hormone disruption and increased breast cancer risk.

Cosmetics companies are not the only culprits in what breast cancer activists often refer to as “pinkwashing.” BMW, for instance, through its “Ultimate Drive” campaign, entices prospective customers to test-drive one of its vehicles by promising $1 to a breast cancer organization for every mile test-driven. But components of car exhaust known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, have been linked to breast cancer and a host of other illnesses. Other auto companies, such as Ford, General Motors, and Mercedes-Benz, also use breast cancer philanthropy to attract female consumers, despite concerns about their products’ link to the development of the disease.

Dairy product manufacturers such as Yoplait are also participating in cause-related marketing campaigns around breast cancer, encouraging consumers to mail parts of yogurt containers back to the company to prompt a donation to the cause. But research suggests a number of health risks, including cancer, are linked with the consumption of dairy products from cows given rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone). There are many sources of non-rBGH dairy products.

Isn’t the jury still out on whether these chemicals cause cancer?

Researchers have yet to develop an adequate method for studying links between chemical exposures and breast cancer, but there is substantial evidence supporting a connection. It is clear that lifetime exposure to estrogens increases the risk of breast cancer. Many synthetic compounds with estrogenic properties have also been found to increase the risk of breast cancer; for detailed information, see State of the Evidence: What Is the Connection Between Chemicals and Breast Cancer?

Though our current knowledge about links between chemicals and breast cancer is compromised by the lack of research methods and tools available, we can and should act now to remove, or at least limit, these substances from our environment. (This is a policy known as the precautionary principle, a basis for decision-making that is already part of many international environmental agreements and European environmental policies.) Evidence of harm, rather than definitive scientific proof of harm, should be sufficient grounds for cautious use of these chemicals. And companies that claim to care about women by supporting the fight against breast cancer should look at whether their business practices might be increasing a woman’s risk of the disease.

Is it reasonable to expect large corporations to do business without using harmful chemicals?

Many major cosmetics companies manufacture phthalate-free products—in fact, companies that produce cosmetics with phthalates often produce the same types of products without phthalates, indicating that they have the capacity to do so but sometimes choose not to. A number of eco-friendly cosmetics companies (such as Dr. Haushka and Aubrey Organics) also manufacture cosmetics without parabens.

Unfortunately, it’s often difficult to determine whether a cosmetic contains phthalates or parabens, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require full disclosure of all ingredients. (In fact, many companies will say that it is “proprietary” information, a “trade secret.”) Corporations are certainly free to use chemical additives in their products, but consumers should be entitled to know what and how much is in the products they buy.

What alternatives to parabens do companies use to preserve their products?

There are a number of methods and ingredients that companies can use to preserve their products without using parabens. For example, some companies use less water or no water in their products, since the more water that is used in formulation, the more it becomes susceptible to spoilage. Companies can also use antioxidizing agenst like grapefruit or grape seed extracts or vitamins like A, C, and E. Some other options are ethyl alcohol (not denatured), wasabi and white willow and “food grade” preservatives like sorbitol.

What about companies that manufacture other types of products—ones that don’t contain chemicals linked to the disease? Should consumers buy these pink-ribbon products?

It depends. Many cause-related marketing campaigns still exploit the disease to sell products. Often, the little amount of money that they raise for breast cancer organizations is shameful, given the enormous public goodwill companies reap through these campaigns. In many cases, the money raised by these campaigns goes to organizations—such as the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation—that support research that does little to bring us closer to truly preventing the disease. Many of these campaigns also exploit the most conventional stereotypes of women—cooking, cleaning, shopping, wearing make-up—suggesting that women are more suited for consumerism than political action.