Healthy Alternatives for Safety Conscious Product Information for your Body and Home

Shelley R. Kramer   Contact: 310 457-5176         

Return to Right to Know

<--Return to Latest News

  2012 Susan B. Komen Breast Cancer Awareness ribbons. the term "pinkwashing" has been coined to describe this deceptive trend, with sponsoring companies claiming they have joined...

 Read the whole Article here at Dr. Mercola's Website:

The term "pinkwashing" has been coined to describe this deceptive trend, with sponsoring companies claiming they have joined the fight against breast cancer while engaging in practices that contribute to the disease. The Komen Foundation receives mega-millions in sponsorship dollars from such corporations...

"Komen receives over $55 million in annual revenue from corporate sponsorships, from such health-minded companies as Coca Cola, General Mills, and KFC — ...Buy a bucket of junk food, and pretend as though you're helping to save lives while you slowly take your own," Michele writes.

Then there are the ties to the drug companies... it's reported that the Komen Foundation owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, the maker of Tamoxifen, a cancer drug that has been found to increase the risk of certain cancers.iii They also reportedly own stock in General Electric, which makes mammogram machines. Their focus on early screening, detection and drug treatment fits these ties to a "T," while education about the real underlying causes of cancer are sorely missing from their campaigns.

Komen Founder's First-Class Travel Expenses Also Questioned

The Komen Foundation has been making headlines for its recent decision to pull funding to Planned Parenthood (a decision they reversed just days later following public outcry), but less highly publicized is an expense report from Komen founder Nancy Brinker, which was brought forward by The Daily Beast.


Brinker reportedly billed the charity over $133,000 for expenses from June 2007 to January 2009, which might not be so unusual except that at the time she had a full-time job with the federal government, serving as chief of protocol for the State Department. Also questionable are her preferences for five-star hotels and first-class travel, which some former Komen employees have said are "at odds with the organization's important mission."

The Daily Beast reports:iv

"... the perception that she could be taking liberties with charity funds could be troublesome, some observers and former colleagues say. [Rick] Cohen of [the journal] Nonprofit Quarterly points out that first-class travel at a nonprofit organization not only is unusual, but also can create the perception that donors' dollars aren't reaching the intended beneficiaries. "For most nonprofits, they wouldn't think of first-class travel," he says. "There is the issue of perception.""

Perception is reality after all, and it's hard to have a positive perception of a company that also reportedly spends nearly $1 million a year suing small charities that use the word "cure" in their names or advertise in pink – even if they're raising money for the same cause! The Wall Street Journal reported:v "[The Komen Foundation is] launching a not-so-friendly legal battle against kite fliers, kayakers and dozens of other themed fund-raisers that it contends are poaching its name. And it's sternly warning charities against dabbling with pink, its signature hue.


American Cancer Society More Interested in Wealth Than Health?

The American Cancer Society, which has colored its Web site with pink ribbons, along with the National Cancer Institute also almost exclusively focus on cancer research and the diagnosis and the chemical treatment of cancer, much like the Komen Foundation.

The ACS also has close financial ties to both the makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs, as well as ties to, and financial support from, the pesticide, petrochemical, biotech, cosmetics, and junk food industries—the very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer.

Once you realize that these conflicts of interest are there, it becomes quite easy to understand why the ACS and other cancer organizations rarely addresses the environmental components of cancer, and why information about avoidable toxic exposures are so conspicuously absent from their national "awareness" campaigns. The truth of the matter is that you have to be very careful when donating to any charitable organization, and be sure that the money you are giving is in fact going toward the purpose you intend to support.

In the case of ACS and most other large cancer charities, your money will go toward research to create new, often-toxic and sometimes deadly cancer drugs, questionable screening programs like mammography, and into the bank accounts of its numerous well-paid executives -- all while the real underlying causes continue to be ignored or intentionally concealed.

top of page

Copyright © All rights reserved.

Telephone: 310-457-5176| Fax: 877-885-4657 | For General Information:

Webmaster for Shelley R. Kramer