Komen backlash leaves Race for the Cure scrambling to limit damage

Title: Komen backlash leaves Race for the Cure scrambling to limit damage: Fears grow that breast cancer awareness event run by Komen group could be a casualty of Planned Parenthood criticism.

Author: Karen McVeigh

Publication:  The Guardian

Date: February 10, 2012

…A week has passed since Komen was forced to reverse that decision and issue a public apology. But that failed to silence the critics, so on Tuesday, Karen Handel, Komen’s senior vice-president and the apparent architect of the defunding decision, resigned. Yet that, too, has done little to restore public confidence in the organisation.

The brand that Komen’s founder Nancy Brinker has spent 30 years building, promoting and aggressively protecting lies in tatters, tainted by a decision widely perceived as political and which, had it been carried through, would have halted breast cancer screening programmes for uninsured women who would otherwise not have access to such care.

How Komen will ever recover is a question many are asking. There are those who feel it won’t be fixed until Brinker and her entire board resigns….

Link to Full Article

Is Susan G. Komen Denying the BPA-Breast Cancer Link?

Title: Is Susan G. Komen Denying the BPA-Breast Cancer Link?

Author: Amy Silverstein

Publication:  Mother Jones

Publication Date: October 3, 2011

If you’ve ever bought something pink to support breast cancer research, there’s a good chance a portion of the money went to Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the largest nonprofit in the world solely dedicated to eradicating the disease. Famous for its fundraising races and pink gear, the foundation has been fighting breast cancer for three decades. So it may come as a surprise that Komen has posted statements on its website that dismiss links between the common chemical bisphenol A (BPA) and breast cancer, even while funding research that explores that possible connection.

Link To Full Article

Mammograms, diet & exercise will not end the epidemic

Title: Mammograms, diet & exercise will not end the epidemic

Author: Karuna Jaggar

Publication: Think Before You Pink blog / Breast Cancer Action

Publication Date:  September 13, 2011

In anticipation of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month this October, Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s CEO Nancy Brinker is calling for “less talk, more action” on breast cancer. I am struck by how similar the urged “action” looks to what the organization has been advocating for years. Komen’s “take action” emphasis continues to be on individual women getting annual mammograms.

At Breast Cancer Action, we bring a markedly different understanding of what action we all need to take—for ourselves, each other, our mothers, daughters, and granddaughters—to truly end the breast cancer epidemic. Komen’s faith in mammograms to bring the “end to breast cancer” is misplaced.

Link To Full Article

 

Susan G. Komen for the Cure® – No More Apologies!

Title:  Susan G. Komen for the Cure® – No More Apologies!

Author: Nancy Stordahl

Publication:  Nancy’s Point blog

Publication Date: August 12, 2011

There has been a lot of discussion recently in the blogosphere about Susan G. Komen for the Cure®. I believe the rumblings are starting to be heard. Now the question is will Komen begin to listen? Like I’ve always told my students, there is a huge difference between hearing and listening.

For the record, Komen describes itself as,

—the world’s largest and most progressive grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists – the only grassroots organization fighting to cure breast cancer at every stage, from the causes to the cures and the pain and anxiety of every moment in between.

Komen’s stated mission is:

to save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering people, ensuring quality care for all and energizing science to find the cures.

Like many bloggers, I’ve been thinking about this organization of late and how it seems to have failed in the above stated mission.

But this particular post isn’t really about that success or failure.

Mostly, what I want to address today is why I have felt so uncomfortable criticizing Komen in the past.

Link to Full Article

How Do You Spell Chutzpah: Komen

Title: How Do You Spell Chutzpah: Komen

Author: Barbara Brenner

Publication: Healthy Barbs blog

Publication Date: July 28, 2011

Yiddish is a very expressive language, a blend of Hebrew and German used by Jews in Europe when they lived in shtetls. One of my favorite Yiddish words is chutzpah. The word has taken on some positive connotations, but I’m using it here in the sense of the Hebrew source word, where it means someone who has overstepped the boundaries of accepted behavior with no shame.

Chutzpah has the benefit of being both expressive, and relatively easy to pronounce, (unless you’re Michelle Bachmann). It is also a very apt description of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation’s recent move to sponsor October as Breast Cancer Action Month.

Link To Full Article

Website accuses Jennifer Ashton & CBS Early Show of bias on mammography “debate”

Title: Website accuses Jennifer Ashton & CBS Early Show of bias on mammography “debate”

Author: Gary Schwitzer

Publication: Gary Schwitzer’s HealthNewsReview Blog

Publication Date: July 27, 2011

The CBS Early Show, saying it was “looking for clarity” on the mammography debate after the American College of Ob-Gyn statement last week, turned to “medical correspondent” Dr. Jennifer Ashton, who appeared in the studio with Nancy Brinker of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Now, the Komen Foundation has a one-sided view of the mammography debate (entirely pro-screening) – one not shared by all breast cancer advocacy organizations – e.g., Breast Cancer Action or the National Breast Cancer Coalition. So there’s a bias there.

Link to Full Article

Komen’s pink ribbons raise green, and questions

Title: Komen’s pink ribbons raise green, and questions

Author: Liz Szabo

Publication: USA Today

Publication Date: July 18, 2011

Supporters of Susan G. Komen for the Cure are used to seeing the group’s founder, Nancy Brinker, at fundraisers such as Race for the Cure.

But some breast cancer survivors said they were surprised to see Brinker recently on the Home Shopping Network selling perfume. The new fragrance, called Promise Me, comes in a rose-colored bottle with Komen’s trademarked pink ribbon, and its manufacturer has pledged to donate at least $1 million to the charity. The perfume is the latest in a long line of products bearing Komen’s pink ribbon, from kitchen mixers to gardening gloves, that have helped the group raise $1.9 billion for breast cancer causes.

And though some of Komen’s marketing partners have become the butt of jokes (KFC’s pink “Buckets for the Cure” was even satirized on The Colbert Report last year), none of these pink-ribboned products has angered as many breast cancer survivors as the new fragrance.

Link to Full Article

Should Breast Cancer Ads Play Up the Pink?

Title: Should Breast Cancer Ads Play Up the Pink?

Author: Katherine Hobson

Publication: Wall Street Journal blog

Publication Date: July 7, 2011

The vast majority of breast cancer cases occur in women, so it’s only natural that the components of and context for public-health ads about the disease have a connection to that gender.

A study recently published by the Journal of Marketing Research, however, questions whether that’s always the best way to go. A series of six experiments demonstrates, the authors say, that emphasizing gender in those ads might actually lower a woman’s perceived risk for breast cancer, make her give less to gender-specific cancer charities and even make her less likely to remember the ads. (Here’s the executive summary and here’s the abstract.)

Link to Full Article

Hold Your Noses: Pink Has A Smell

Title: Hold Your Noses: Pink Has A Smell

Author: Gayle Sulik

Publication: Pink Ribbon Blues blog

Publication Date: June 17, 2011

Susan G. Komen for the Cure®’s new fragrance Promise Me has more than a few people up in arms about the lengths this nonprofit organization (or perhaps more appropriately termed, nonprofit corporation), will go to guarantee its position in the breast cancer marketplace. The organization technically is in the business of ending breast cancer not hawking pink ribbon product lines. If it worked as it should, achieving its mission would render the organization and its increasing number of branded products obsolete.

This irony is not lost on a growing number of individuals and organizations taking aim at what they believe to be seriously misdirected activities. Komen’s corporate partnership last October with consumer products investor and operator, TPR Holdings, only invigorated discontent. TPR’s targeted investments include “scalable mass and prestige opportunities in health, beauty and  wellness categories.” Together, Komen and TPR envisioned “a union of beauty and charity” that took the form of a scalable, mass-produced, prestige item specifically designed for Susan G. Komen for the Cure®, a fragrance called Promise Me. The perfume was released in April, given as a complimentary sample to prospective beauty bloggers and reviewers, and is slated to remain on the market for six months “with new editions launching each year.”

Link to Full Article

Pastel Injustice: The Corporate Use of Pinkwashing for Profit

Title: Pastel Injustice: The Corporate Use of Pinkwashing for Profit

Authors: Amy Lubitow and Mia Davis

Publication: Environmental Justice

Publication Date: June 17, 2011

This article discusses the importance of recognizing pinkwashing, the practice of using the color pink and pink ribbons to indicate a company has joined the search for a breast cancer cure and to invoke breast cancer solidarity, even when the company may be using chemicals linked to cancer. This article argues that pinkwashing is a form of social injustice directed at women in the United States because the practice a) provides a vehicle for corporations to control the public experience of breast cancer, while simultaneously increasing profits and potentially contributing to the rising rate of the disease; b) obscures an environmental health discourse that recognizes the environmental causes of breast cancer; and c) co-opts or redirects women’s experiences of the disease by narrowly defining what is possible.

Link to Full Article