Fw: Questioning the PR: Pink Ribbons and Public Relations

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " ilena rose " <ilena@...>

<Recipient List Suppressed:;>

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 4:20 PM

Subject: Questioning the PR: Pink Ribbons and Public Relations

http://www.questionthepr.com/qpr1.html

Pink Ribbons and Public Relations

Many people have donated their money and time to Breast Cancer Awareness

Month, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, the G. Komen Foundation,

the Race for the CureÆ, or other breast cancer charities. Not so many people

are aware that these causes are sponsored by some of the largest

multinational corporations involving the oil and chemical industries, and

that these corporations have their own reasons for backing breast cancer

charities.

A few years ago, I read an article about how National Breast Cancer

Awareness Month (NBCAM) was actually sponsored by the company that makes the

mostly widely used breast cancer treatment drug, Tamoxifen. This company,

AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical, also manufactured pesticides and owned a chain

of outpatient cancer treatment centers. Environmental scientists linked the

same pesticides as ones manufactured by AstraZeneca to breast cancer

resulting from chemical contamination of our water and soil.

First, a slight disclaimer... I am not implying that all cancer charities

are scams. Many well-meaning people and businesses give to these charities.

However, a few very, very large corporations with deep pockets are involved

in helping these charities for their own undisclosed reasons, as you will

learn from reading this.

After researching the biggest funders of the " pink ribbon campaign " , it

became evident that pink ribbon campaigns are also big " pr " campaigns for

these corporations.

PR=pink ribbon=public relations

One of these reasons is that these industrial giants want to " manage public

perceptions " . In other words, they want to have some say in what people

think about breast cancer and what should be done about it.

These companies ARE making a lot of money from products and services related

to cancer. They have a vested interest in what consumers and the general

public know about cancer and its causes and treatment. Using a charity to

change public opinion about a company is not anything new. Here is an

example...

PR or " proactive marketing " overcomes a disaster for a major corporation.

Over a decade ago, the Exxon Valdez spilled oil into the Gulf of Alaska,

causing a major environmental disaster. Exxon Corporation could not deny the

damage done by the oil spill. Instead, Exxon took a proactive step in

dealing with the public's alarm over the disaster, which included a

masterful advertising campaign, known as " green marketing " , aimed at

soothing the public's outrage towards Exxon and the Valdez oilspill.

This proactive, " green marketing " approach is now standard protocol for

corporations dealing with a crisis in public confidence towards their

practices and actions. (As a side note here, there is a really good paper

available on the Internet on Exxon Corporation and green marketing called

" Saving The Tiger " .)

At the time, Exxon admitted that the oil spill had happened and wanted to

show the public that " they cared " . They used public relations in the form of

press conferences and advertising to convey the message. They even gave

money to " environmental groups " , as long as these groups had positive things

to say about the how " responsible and caring " Exxon really was.

Since that time, large corporations have routinely turned to public

relations for political lobbying and efforts to discredit criticism from

journalists, scientists and political activists when things go bad for their

businesses and their industry. Battle tactics that were successfully used to

counter environmentalists a decade ago have now spilled over to the

healthcare industry as well. This should not come as a surprise when one

understands that these industries, the petrochemical and chemical industry

and the pharmaceutical and healthcare industry, have a lot in common.

PR tactics adopted in these situations have even included aggressive smear

campaigns and underhanded planting of " expert witnesses " who do the

corporations' bidding at public hearings and court trials. Corporations have

cultivated grassroots organizations, such as the pink ribbon campaign, to

turn public discussion away from asking more questions, such about what

guides and directs cancer research in the US. Big companies have employed

slick advertising to discredit research studies that might expose practices

the public would find distasteful or less than ethical.

Here is a good question: why do we have a " war on cancer " ? How long can this

" war " go on?

It is important that we ask questions about the involvement of drug

companies in cancer research. Are we just helping companies develop and sell

more and " better " drugs and cancer treatments? Why is this " war " focused on

rather developing and using expensive methods of diagnosing and treating

disease instead of preventing it altogether or in the first place? How is it

that getting mammograms and taking drugs are considered to be means of

" prevention " ?

If we really were preventing cancer, wouldn't that include making our

environment safer for future generations?

Large corporations have used breast cancer awareness and other cancer

charities to shape the public's thinking about cancer prevention to suit

their own, which revolves around developing and selling a " cure " for cancer

in the form of a drug or a " medicine cabinet " full of new pharmaceutical

products for them to sell to us.

First, they are selling us on the idea that cancer ought to be " curable " in

the form of a pharmaceutical product. Then, they can market these new drugs

to patients diagnosed as having cancer or as being at risk for cancer.

Nowhere on their websites or in their literature does the National Cancer

Institute or the American Cancer Society mention environmental pollution as

being the largest risk factor for cancer, which it is, in fact... Why don't

they? Instead, they steer public awareness away from the notion that

environmental pollution has anything really to do with breast cancer.

If we changed the focus of so-called " cancer prevention " from being about

product development ( " finding the cure " , i.e., a pill to take) to being

about preventing cancer by cleaning up hormone disrupting toxins in the

environment, it could cost the major corporate supporters of breast cancer

awareness billions of dollars, since they are among the worst polluters on

the planet.