Pink Ribbons, Inc.

You can't walk into a store these days without being inundated by the ubiquitous pink ribbons adorning every sort of product from food stuffs to clothing to automobiles. You've probably purchased something that promised a donation towards the "fight' against breast cancer. Maybe you've even participated in a 5K run to support family or friends dealing with the disease. You have the best intentions, and you're not alone. One organization has raised over 1.9 billion dollars via this method. So what has the real impact been of this phenomenon?

Sadly, not much. This disturbing fact, along with many others of equal discomfort, are at the heart of "Pink Ribbons, Inc.," a new documentary now in general release. Director Lea Pool takes Dr. Samantha King's 2006 book "Pink Ribbons, Inc. - Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy" and expands upon it via interviews, documentary footage, and current data.

Here are three facts gleaned from the film that should give everyone cause to pause:

* Since 1940, the chances of a woman developing some form of breast cancer have gone from 1 in 22 to 1 in 8.

* Only 5% of the money spent on breast cancer research goes into researching environmental causes.

* A large number of products sold that donate a portion of their proceeds towards breast cancer organizations contain ingredients known or suspected to cause cancer.

The film traces the transmogrification of the "fight" against breast cancer from political activism to consumer activism. Remember the days when you just wrote a check to The American Cancer Society? Or you joined a protest march against a corporate polluter? Now you can spend 50 cents on a container of yogurt, peel off the lid, wash it, stick it in an envelope, spend 45 cents on a stamp, and mail it back to the company so that they will make a 10 cent donation. Do the math.

And what about companies that "enlist in the war on cancer" that are on one hand developing pharmaceutical treatments for breast cancer but on the other hand sell pesticides containing cancer-causing agents?

As good as this film is in exposing the issues surrounding cause marketing, it fails to answer one simple question (though apparently not from trying. Companies are notoriously tight-lipped on the subject.) – How much do these companies profit from the sale of these products versus how much do they contribute to the cause? As one of the members of a Stage IV Cancer Support group asks, "Are they profiting from my disease?" If the answer is yes, would you still buy that paper towel?

The film's bottom line is this - Has the cheerful, fuzzy pink aura built around breast cancer to facilitate "awareness" and charitable giving obfuscated the harsh realities of the disease? We still don't know what causes it; the treatments are pretty much the same as they were 50 years ago, mortality rates are the same as they have been. Has the "branding" of the cause led us to fail to ask the tough questions? Where is the money going? How is it being spent? What exactly is being researched?

See this film. It may give you something to think about before you sign up for that next run...

www.worstshowontheweb.com

"Pink Ribbons, Inc." is a far from perfect film but it's also a film that dares to ask many important questions. While the masses blindly buy their pink ribboned products and corporations thereby get richer, this film dares to question many things about this trendy cause. Because it will get you to think, it's well worth seeing. Some of the wonderful questions they pose include: There are some odd associations--such as many of the companies sticking the ribbons on their products ALSO produce carcinogenic products--such as cosmetics.

The percentage of the money from these ribbons that goes to research is negligible. Most folks buying the products and doing the cancer walks assume the bulk of the money is being used for research when it isn't.

Throwing money blindly at a problem may be a complete waste. There is no coordination among researchers and there is an assumption that money will lead to an elimination of the problem--providing a false sense of control.

There also were some parts in the film that irritated me. Either statements were made that were OPINION instead of fact-based bothered me and many important points were never mentioned. These include: The link between chemicals and cancers needs to be addressed. Research establishing links between product exposure and cancer have not been done on many items we use all the time. This was a great point but also problematic and something I disliked about the film. They never even discussed how many (if not most) cancers may be caused by genetics and a few of the people interviewed seemed to ASSUME certain chemicals are leading to higher incidence of cancer. No one mentions that PERHAPS the increase in cancer is simply because people are living much longer and the longer you live, the more likely you'll get cancer.

Oddly, no one in the film talked about how all the attention and money focused on breast cancer may lead to deaths--deaths because less attention and money is being spent on research on OTHER cancers and non-cancerous killers.

One lady asserted that cancer MAY be caused by viruses but, as I said above, the genetic link was NEVER mentioned in the film. This is VERY odd, as the link of genetics with breast cancer is very strong (i.e., it is often passed from generation to generation within families).

So, overall, I'd say the film is a mixed bag. I admire them for taking on a 'sacred cow' but also wish the film had maintained a much tighter focus--in other words, WHERE IS ALL THIS MONEY GOING? and DOES ANY OF THIS REALLY HELP? Worth seeing but don't think the film is Gospel, either.

[...]The film looks at the issue from many different aspects. It looks at the marketing of a disease, and what could be called the "breast cancer industrial complex," in which many corporations are profiting from women's pain. They, of course, look at the amount of money that Komen spends on marketing, legal battles, and executive salaries versus the comparatively small amount that it contributes to research. It also examines the environmental hypocrisies of the pink ribbon movement, including the fact that many of the corporate sponsors of the movement have historically used products linked to cancer, such as Yoplait using RBGH-containing dairy. It looks at the fact that so little funding is designated to examining potential environmental causes such as pollutants, and the clear conflict of interest that would involve given the industrial contributors to Komen.

The film also explores the problems with Komen's messaging. They speak to a support group of women living with stage four breast cancer, who talk about how it feels to have cancer paraded as something pink and pretty and normal. (The filmmakers typically juxtaposed these interviews with shots of people at Komen race events waving pink pompoms and streamers and cheering.) They spoke candidly about how they feel that there is not a place for them in the current dialogue surrounding cancer, as they are viewed as the "angel of death" in a typical group of people living with breast cancer. They also touch on the sexualization of the disease, speculating that one of the reasons that it receives so much media attention is that it affords people the opportunity to say "breast" on the news. All of these interviews were incredibly poignant, articulate, and at times heart-wrenching, and while in general I would have liked to have had interviews with more people overall, the subjects that were featured were chosen very wisely.

This is an exemplary work of activist documentary filmmaking. Unlike some other examples of the genre, it does not beat you over the head with emotional pleas (though some moments are incredibly emotional), but rather calmly lays all of the rational arguments out before the viewer. It is a difficult task to take down a giant like Komen, but this film firmly does so with elegance and grace.

Read the full review here: http://mattreviewsstuff.com/2012/04/28/pink-ribbons-inc/

Same old story: charities profiting from people's struggles with sickness. Whether it's big names like Ferragni and Balocco or small research institutions studying rare diseases, the scheme is always the same.

Does the cheerful image built around breast cancer really help ill women, or does it hide the harsh truth? We still don't know what causes it, treatments haven't changed in 50 years, and survival rates are the same. Where's the donated money going? How's it used? Before you join the next charity run, think about it. Donations often end up in basic science and flawed research models that don't help people. Big institutions, inclluding the health care industry, benefit, and those in it make a living from the funds. The main focus here seems more on cashing in for personal gain. The prevailing notion that a complex problem can be solved by simply pouring money into it is a quintessentially American capitalist mindset, albeit fundamentally flawed.

Only among the left-wing lunatics that make documentaries for the National Film Board of Canada could one find the kind of person who would complain that the experience of getting a deadly disease is made somehow less dignified because of its association with corporate giving. Author Barbara Ehrenreich, cancer survivor, complains about everything she can think of: that anti-cancer activists are annoyingly upbeat, that some of the products sold to support breast cancer research are cuddly or cute, that the grim, sad, angry sorts of cancer patients out there don't get enough airplay. This documentary remedies that with several wrenching interviews with weeping cancer patients suffering from end -stage cancer. See, audience? What do you think of those stupid little ribbons now, huh?

Samantha King even goes so far as to call an upbeat attitude in he face of the disease "tyranny." As in "tyranny of cheerfulness."

The Susan G. Komen Foundation ran afoul of feminists a few years back by daring not to support Planned Parenthood's abortion-on-demand factories. It seems Lea Pool and her backers at the National Film Board have fired a dark and angry salvo back at the "pink ribbon" industry that, if the film's subtext is anything to go by, is guilty mainly of making it more difficult to politicize the disease and make it the realm of angry feminists with anti- capitalist leanings.

Well-produced, but probably not a fair portrayal of mainstream and corporate anti-cancer efforts. Cynical and borderline juvenile in its contrarianism. C+.