Great damn post, Ann. I've had this book on my wishlist for some time now, but haven't gotten a chance to read it yet. I also blogged about it after grappling with my feelings on it for a while.

This one leaves me mixed. My mother just went through breast cancer (bilateral mastectomy, chemo, and radiation) and Komen has an influence at my house. My mom has alot of their items that are supposed to support breast cancer research. Plus my family has participated in some of their walks.

But it would be great if breast cancer ended by 2015.

What I have to wonder about is the constant "awareness" raising about breast cancer. I'm not donating money to help people become aware of breast cancer - I think they're plenty aware.

Arguments against Komen leave me feeling mixed too. I am biased - I was diagnosed with breast cancer last year, and am far outside of the normal range of risk. I hate the pink shit and identify with Ehrenreich's "Welcome to Cancerland" essay completely. A pink mixer does not a cancer cure make. That said I walked the National Race for the Cure 5K this June. I felt good about raising money for the walk, mainly for the million+ dollars that go from the race to local breast cancer organizations which supply services which I have benefited from directly.

I don't think criticism of the Komen Foundation is unfounded, far from it. Swissler's article is excellent but old, and if you deign to dig a bit you'll find that Nancy Brinker and the Komen Foundation still gives money to republicans. In my mind that's not necessarily a good thing, but you'd have to be blind to think that's all the Komen foundation does.

A lot of resources are going into breast cancer research and treatment as well as services to those individuals stricken with the disease. It's no misconception. The environmental angle is vital, in my opinion to understanding not only breast cancer but other cancers better, but on every medical research front, this is difficult and relatively new research. In May of this year the Komen Foundation launched the Environmental Factors and Breast Cancer Science Review, which your post fails to mention.

Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that, especially for large organizations, they are not all good or bad. Saying Komen is completely evil, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater to some degree. I'm no Komen cheerleader, but sometimes I think it's easier to point away from yourself and say, "you're doing it wrong!" than really engage and see if there's anything good going on and try to make it better. Breast Cancer Action does good work as does Dr. Susan Love's Research Foundation but their focus is different than the Komen Foundation. It's easy to poke fun at Thompson's announcement too, but I'd rather this in the Presidential race than more talk about immigration.

Finally, do we really have to question whether or not Nancy Brinker runs an organization which "claims to fight" breast cancer? Her sister did die of the disease at a very young age. I have trouble believing that the foundation was built as a republican lobbying tool as opposed to fighting breast cancer. I think it's a low and unnecessary blow that only hurts one's argument.

I highly recommend Samatha King's book Breast Cancer Inc. She examines the whole pinking of breast cancer and examines women's roles in the whole pink movement.

While I understand the mixed feelings, I also want to point out that these organizations have an interest in making women feel good for participating. Sure you feel like you're doing something to help, but are you really? Where is the money going? Who is being helped? Is the research ending breast cancer or just prolonging life and chemo? These are the political questions big organizations and walk participants don't seem to be asking.

Steph,

I think I stated pretty clearly that I felt good about raising money for local organizations through the National Race for the Cure. I may have cancer, but I can do my homework and I haven't been duped. Furthermore, as a 29-year-old with breast cancer, you'd better believe I find research which lends itself to "just prolonging life" valuable. I have trouble imagining why that might be considered a minor victory.

Typo - my comment above should read:

I have trouble imagining why that might not be considered at least a minor victory.

Ok, I have a couple of science-based issues with this post and some of the comments:

Ann talks about "chemicals
that very likely cause breast cancer". I think "very likely" is a huge embellishment on what that article and study actually said. Again this is a study using data from previous studies, done on mice. It's not a definitive account of anything, and certainly doesn't call for the use of the words "very likely".

Science is messy, and research comes to inconclusive ends sometimes. Ann has already come to the conclusion that chemicals from the companies cause breast cancer, and she's pissed that science hasn't yet done the same. I'm not saying this could not turn out to be correct, but Ann acts as it's already a foregone conclusion, which according to science is not the case.

As to Steph's remarks about chemo, I would just have her keep in mind that chemotherapy is one of the best cancer fighting tools we have available at the moment, and it has indeed cured cancer in many, many people. To talk of it like it's some impotent and unnecessary procedure is weak sauce indeed.

I agree. Throwing around stuff about what causes any kind of cancer (besides some we know definitively) is some pretty bad science. We can take good guesses, but we don't know for sure.

As far as the Komen foundation--I'm glad some of these questions are being raised. I've noticed several times that Think Pink items have been tagged in fine print as being associated with Tamoxifen, a breast cancer drug. Which makes me wonder how much AstraZeneca charges women with BC just to turn around and re-coup money from them when they also buy Think Pink items.

And finally I'd like to remind the women of the board that we aren't susceptible only to breast cancer. I'm a Hodgkin's survivor, myself. A lot of times I'm afraid that while the Think Pink campaign has done a great job of raising breast cancer awareness, it's smothered awareness of other types of cancers. There's plenty of cancer to go around that has nothing to do with your breasts, I'm sorry to report, except we don't have fun colors.

I have a really hard time believing that anyone who accepts an award from the IWF truly has women's interests at heart.

If you are interested in this topic, check out Samantha King’s book, Pink Ribbons, Inc. Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy.

I have just started it but so far I’m impressed. This book looks at the recent transformation of breast cancer from a stigmatized disease to corporate pink-sheathed tale of heroic survivorship. It looks at legislative, corporate, marketing, and social history of this disease. It thoughtfully examines the roles of power, class, and notions of female beauty that have profoundly shaped public opinion and legislative policy about this disease.

I work in the field of cancer prevention research. I admire the hard work that has gone into the Komen campaign but I am skeptical about its actual impact on the prevention or treatment of breast cancer. I dislike the girlish “pinking� of the disease. I worry about the possibility that the “breast mania� may lead some women to neglect screening for colorectal cancer or to overlook the epidemic of skin cancer. I worry about the promotion of mammograms for average risk women under age 50 and breast self exam; both of which are of questionable efficacy. I am royally pissed that the primary discourse about prevention in these organizations is related to personal responsibility re: mammography. Komen and similar organizations neglect to adequately address environmental causes of breast cancer or health system factors, like access and availability of mammography and treatment for the uninsured.

Not to mention that I personally will not donate my own money to an organization that spends so much of its money on pink, glossy, ineffective promotional materials and on an annual walkathon. If you want to make donations that will influence breast cancer research, give to the National Cancer Institute or the American Cancer Society.

I am reading Breast Cancer Inc right now. Thank you for making this post.

Think before you pink.

its not just a minor tie to occidental petroleum, occidental donates 4000 sq ft of office space to the susan g. komen foundation. and occidental isnt just any petroleum company, theyre the company responsible for the love canal disaster which led to the establishment of superfund. nancy brinker donated 100,000 to bush's campaign, fought against the patient bill of rights. susan g komen foundation gets tons of funding from companies who make mammogram machines, drug companies, etc. her husband isnt any better, having donated $25,000 to the center for consumer freedom, which for the record doesnt do anything positive for consumers of freedom. his pac in 2006 donated over $90,000 to republican senate and house campaigns.

ive been reading alot about the brinker's and their funding of the republican machine. ive been job hunting and got an interview with chilis so i researched the company to find out about it, which led me to brinker international, which led me to alot of ugly info.

to put a spin on the whole thing, in bush's donation disclosure that revealed nancy brinker's massive donation, her occupation is listed as "housewife" which seems fascinating seeing as last i knew she was the head of a huge non-profit.

are they even a non-profit? i assume so.

its really a mess tho, im sure there are better ways to donate time and money to fight breast cancer than to partner with such a suspect group.

oof. "consumers of freedom" should read "consumers OR freedom."

First off, I didn't mean to imply that money spent on treatment isn't money well spent. I really apologize if breast cancer survivors (or anyone else, for that matter) took my post as a total dismissal of fundraising to improve treatment of the disease. That certainly wasn't my intention.

And yes, I spent some time reading the Komen website before I wrote the post, including their announcement from two months ago about their new project to review current research on environmental causes. I appreciate that now they appear to be taking steps on the environmental causes issue.

In linking to that one article about one study about possible environmental causes, I didn't intend to imply that this is a definitive answer about the chemicals causing the disease. I guess my point is this: If a huge group like Komen had thrown its weight (and its dollars) behind research into environmental causes several years ago, maybe, just maybe, we'd have more knowledge about these causes today. Doesn't it seem at least somewhat plausible that Komen was reluctant to be out ahead of the curve on environmental research because some of their biggest donor companies are also huge polluters?

Of course it's plausible. My point was that your original post was far more definitive-sounding than simply saying it's plausible.

Have to disagree that women, especially young women are already know everything they need to know about breast cancer. I'm BRCA1+, and have had two instances of breast cancer in my immediate family in the past two years. I've had to learn a lot about the disease, its treatment, and the ins and outs of personal and professional monitoring. When talking to younger cousins and friends i am surprised at how little they know. So I do think raising awareness is still important.

That being said, I don't think the Komen foundation does a good job of raising awareness. The walks are very emotional, a time to bond with survivors, but they always seem to me to be occasions for preaching to the choir. Most of the people who attend them are already deeply, gruesomely aware of breast cancer.

The Komen walks are good for networking and helping to offset some of the isolation of cancer, but I wish that their campaigns were more informative, less touchy feely.

It is true that the walks are incredibly emotional and do break down the isolation of patients. I will never forget my first one and the overwhelming feeling that tens of thousands of people--a sea of people--really cared.

That said, I now donate directly to research programs at the research hospital where my doctors work.

I, too, have mixed feelings regarding Komen and breast cancer awareness. My mother died of breast cancer 4 years ago. She appreciated the increased awareness Komen brought to breast cancer, and bought a lot of pink stuff. After she passed away, my brother and I were going through her effects and found numerous race for the cure t-shirts, pink jewelry,etc. I think my brother summed it up for both of us when I asked him if he wanted any of her cancer related items as a keepsake. He answered "I don't want any of that pink shit."

I feel that Komen puts greater emphasis on prevention and detection efforts, and less stress on care and support of recurrent, metastatic cancer. I wish there had been more information resources available when her disease recurred. Although she had the best medical care, I felt like there were few options available for a woman living with, and then ultimately dying with cancer.

It really is important to create awareness about breast cancer prevention, there are ways in which women can autoexaminarce! feel much rlr260 mother's death.
Very good site, I will recommend to my group of readers in the university, ----> How can I be part of an Internet Marketing Affiliate Program?Someone has the answer?

The work most part still ahead, we have defined volumes of buildings, have started architecture of this place impregnated with taste of a remarkable product.
At the same time we yours faithfully concern this territory, to an architectural heritage.