"Think before you pink"

Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, Oct, 2005 by Rose Marie Williams

In 1969, President Richard M. Nixon declared war on cancer--intending to wipe out the disease in our generation. Despite billions of dollars financing this war, cancer has now become the number one killer of Americans under age 85, and of children. At Nixon's departure in 1974, V.P. Gerald Ford and wife Betty moved into the White House. Seven weeks later Betty Ford began treatment for breast cancer and decided to go public with her disease. With the help of her daughter, Susan, these two high profile women put a face on, and lent a voice to, a previously seldom discussed disease. (1, 2).

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

October used to conjure up visions of brilliant yellow and red foliage, orange jack-o-lanterns, and black witches' hats. As awareness about breast cancer reaches astronomical proportions, pink ribbons are everywhere, even on the tongue of my new sneakers, as I happened to discover while preparing this article. Now, as October approaches, consumers are bombarded with pink ribbons, pink banners, pink note pads, pink pens, and more. Hope Nemiroff, Executive Director of Breast Cancer Options refers to this as the "Pinking of America." (3)

Since breast cancer went mainstream, the commercialization of pink has become a non-stop phenomenon. Even the 630 foot St. Louis Gateway Arch glowed pink last October. The National Park Service was initially concerned about setting a precedent by the colored lighting of a national monument, but was quick to express support for a new law ordering the lighting of the arch. Normally bathed in white light, the arch turned pink for one night. (4) What's next? The Statue of Liberty?

Breast Cancer Awareness Month

"October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month" was the brainchild of the Zeneca Corp. (now Astra Zeneca), which pays for and controls all radio and TV ads, pamphlets, and most other information related to this campaign with little or no mention of environmental risk factors from toxic pesticides, chemicals, or other environmental pollutants. Astra Zeneca was once part of the British company, Imperial Chemical Industries. The public is largely unaware that Zeneca is the producer of tamoxifen (Nolvadex), the most widely prescribed breast cancer drug in the world. Zeneca also produced acetochlor, a carcinogenic herbicide, increasingly suspected as a risk factor for developing breast cancer. Zeneca has also been buying up cancer clinics around the country. Zeneca stock has been praised in business articles. Clearly, cancer prevention would not be their top priority. (5)

There is very little funding from government and industry for studies on the relationship of pesticides, and environmental pollutants, to cancer. This line of research is not profit-motivating. However, a recent study co-sponsored by the Breast Cancer Fund and Breast Cancer Action found interesting new links. Their report, "State of the Evidence 2004: What is the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer," details new links between environmental toxins and breast cancer. New evidence strengthens the link between breast cancer and exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals.

Exposure to synthetic chemicals and radiation has contributed more than previously thought to the continuing rise of breast cancer. The report reiterated that exposure to ionizing radiation is the best-established cause of breast cancer. From 1950 to 1991 the incidence of breast cancer in the US increased 90%. The Breast Cancer Fund is the only non-profit national organization that focuses solely on identifying and advocating for elimination of environmental and other preventable causes of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Action is a non-profit national education advocacy organization devoted to ending the breast cancer epidemic. (6).

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The new report offers a "Six-point Plan to Help Reduce the Risk of Breast Cancer and Ultimately End the Epidemic":

* Phase out known carcinogenic and mutagenic chemicals; test all others for effects on health and the environment.

* Hold corporations accountable for hazardous practices and offer incentives for clean green practices.

* Educate the public about health effects of radiation and how to reduce exposure.

* Establish a comprehensive bio-monitoring program to measure the presence of chemicals in people and track health outcomes. (6)

Another part of the October awareness message is to urge women to get yearly mammograms, touting "early detection is the best protection." But, if something has been detected, then you have not been protected. Again, most consumers are unaware that General Electric, heavily invested in the nuclear industry, manufactures all the mammography equipment used in this country. It would be an understatement to say there is little profit in prevention. (5)

The Mammography Dilemma

The American Cancer Society (ACS) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) began promoting mammograms in the early 1970s as a tool in the war against breast cancer. As early as 1976, John C. Bailar III, then editor of the NCI Journal, questioned the procedure by writing, "The possible benefits of mammography have received more emphasis in the clinical literature than have its defects," adding, "mammography may eventually cause more deaths from breast cancer than it prevents." (7) Sobering words, indeed. It is no surprise that little, if any, research has followed up this concern expressed by other medical experts including John Gofman, MD, PhD, author of Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of This Disease, and founder of the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility (CNR); Janette D. Sherman, MD, author of Life's Delicate Balance, Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer, and Samuel S. Epstein, MD, author of The Politics of Cancer.