Life's Delicate Balance
Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer
by Janette D. Sherman, M.D.

Excerpts from Chapter 15
   THE CANCER MOVEMENT
Independent, Sold-Out, or Bought Up? 

"Break the Silence - Stop the Epidemic
 Open the Doors to Dialogue Around the World"

That was the theme of the World Conference on Breast Cancer, held in July 1997, at the University of Kingston, Ontario, Canada.   With few trappings, volunteers brought together women from 60 countries, who with virtually a single voice demanded action to stop the carnage.

I learned that the women of Kingston, Canada, like other women living in the Great Lakes Basin, have the second highest breast cancer rate in North America.  Why?  Kingston shares with other places on the Great Lakes one obvious thing: water.  Kingston is a pretty city, situated at the eastern end of Lake Ontario, where the St. Lawrence River begins it's journey to the Atlantic.  Lake Ontario is last in the chain of the Great Lakes, that receive run-off from the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York and from the Canadian Province of Ontario.  Along the shores of the five Great Lakes are farms, power plants, and industries, adding pesticides, chemicals, incinerator emissions, road run-off, fuels, nuclear wastes, and sewage.  There is little wonder that this city, with the multitude of pollutants streaming by, is in the midst of a cancer epidemic.

...

A prime example of corporate control is the annual October Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM).  According to  "BCAM SCAM," an expose published in The Nation, the BCAM idea "was conceived and paid for by a British chemical company that both profits from this epidemic and may be contributing to its cause. Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) along with two non-profit groups, co-founded BCAM nine years ago.  The October event has grown in influence with thirteen institutions now on its board which include the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute.  BCAM has become fashionable too: Avon, Estee Lauder and Hanes have lent sponsorship.  But, since the beginning, all BCAM's bills have been paid by Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, the new name of ICI's U.S. subsidiary. Altogether, ICI has spent several million dollars on BCAM, according to [a] Zeneca spokeswoman."

For this support, ICI can control the message: "Early detection is your best protection."

Janet Collins thinks the better message is "Prevention is your best protection."  We have no trouble accepting immunization for our children and thus have decreased suffering and death from polio, whooping cough, tetanus, diphtheria and the like.  Why do we accept less than true prevention when it comes to cancer?  Janet also says "this practice of polluting corporations recruiting women as their spokespeople drives me crazy.  Not only do they get to give the impression that they are equal opportunity and that women are with them side-by-side in the march of progress, but the cowards get to hide behind the skirts of women." Early detection is important, because like other cancers, breast cancer is more curable before it has spread. But, detection is not prevention:   ICI is in the business of manufacturing and selling synthetic chemicals.  With annual sales well in excess of $18 billion, ICI is one of the world's largest producers and users of chlorine.

And, as discussed earlier, ICI/Zeneca manufactures tamoxifen, (brand name is NOLVADEX) the world's top-selling cancer drug used for breast cancer.  Breast cancer activists must understand that what is good for a corporate sponsor may not be in the interest of the activist.

...

Can this lack of attention to toxic chemicals and nuclear radiation as factors in causation of cancer be in any way connected to the sponsors listed on the program?  These corporations are in the business of marketing chemical products: cosmetics, solvents, plastics, pesticides, surfactants, and pharmaceuticals.  Can activists expect that such companies will continue to back us if we advocate cutbacks in the use of chemicals if cutbacks reduce sales? Clearly, accepting gifts and underwriting funds poses problems for the independence of the environmental groups.  There is concern that because of pressure, and the difficulty of raising funds, the Kingston group who sponsored the First World Conference on Breast Cancer may not emphasize prevention when they next meet in the year 2000.  Self preservation alone demands a strong stance, but as they well know, not accepting gifts and underwriting poses problems as well, mostly the starvation of advocacy work.  This year, Greenpeace closed offices and curtailed operations because of lack of money. Sierra Club is in a similar situation, as is Environmental Health Network, the organization that researched and published  Inconclusive By Design

While advocacy groups are cutting back because of lack of funds, financial support for groups such as the Center for Risk Analysis and the Health Policy and Management Department, based at the Harvard School of Public Health is thriving.  A partial list of donors includes the following:

Contrasted to the list of donors acceptable to the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Breast Cancer Action made the policy decision not to accept contributions from the following categories:
1. Pharmaceutical companies
2. Chemical manufacturers
3. Oil companies
4. Tobacco companies
5. Health insurance organizations
6. Cancer treatment facilities.

...

The breast cancer issue has been adopted not only by pharmaceutical corporations, but by advertising for fashionable products and meetings.  All the while, laws protecting polluters remain in place and the polluters co-opt advocacy groups.  We must understand the false allure of the powerful and rich, of luncheon perks and products that add to our contaminated lives.   We must understand the sources of authority in our culture, end naivete, take charge of our own lives, and raise our own funds by dint of our own labor.  Can we, as Breast Cancer Action did, learn to say, "No thank you" to tainted money?  Even a small amount of tainted money?  The $35,000 gift to the Breast Cancer Awareness luncheon donated by Mobile may sound like a lot, but it is less than 1/2 of one percent of only two jury judgements against Mobil.  And that total does not count the money spent on attorneys, fighting citizen's concerns, and opposing concerned and honest scientists. A look into the gift horse's mouth may reveal rotted teeth and very bad breath.

Previous | Next

About the Author | Table of Contents | To Order