ALTERNET: Will Silicone Bounce Back?

[Guest guest]

Thanks to Gail Hamilton for forwarding this for us ... good place for comments as this is a highly read site.

http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/#comments

Will Silicone Bounce Back?

By

Lizzy Ratner, New York Observer

.. Posted

October 21, 2006.

Silicone Breast Implants

There are certain grand historical fights that you think are over, tucked into the quaint Snoopy lunchbox of the past like a Capri Sun or bologna sandwich. Remember the Dalkon Shield I.U.D. uproar of the 1970's, with its controversial whiff of scientific profit over women's safety? Or what about the silicone-breast-implant scandals of the early 1990's? When silicone-boob-makers were all but run out of town as woman after woman came forward with ghoulish tales of ruptured implants and strange autoimmune-style ailments? Those were crazy days.

But sometimes the merry-go-round of culture swoops back around, depositing the old controversies right back in front of you like a stomping, pouty kid. Time slips back, and despite all other indications of social or at least temporal progress, the disgraced, buried past returns. Like Dick Cheney. Or creationism. Or, yes, silicone-boob jobs.

Throughout the last few months, rumors have been whipping through the breast-augmentation world that the Food and Drug Administration is on the verge of returning silicone implants to the open market after a 14-year partial ban on the gel-filled bosom enhancers. The ban, which came down in 1992, had never fully eradicated silicone -- women who had endured mastectomies or had a breast " deformity " or agreed to participate in a study could still opt for the gel -- but the average Pamela groupie, the cosmetic breast enhancer, was out of luck. She had to make do with saline.

But last summer, the F.D.A. sent word to two competing implant manufacturers, Inamed and the Mentor Corporation, that their applications to sell a new generation of silicone-filled sacs were " approvable with conditions. " And since then, whispers of an imminent F.D.A. decision date -- the most recent centered on July 4 -- have regularly sifted through the country's plastic-surgery capitals, from the C-cup-loving streets of New York to the D-cup-worshipping beaches of California and Texas. (Implant size is, apparently, the one area where New Yorkers are more conservative than Texans.)

In a sign of just how confident the manufacturers are in the F.D.A.'s intentions, both Inamed and Mentor have included revenue from silicone implants in their 2006 earnings projections, CNNMoney.com reported.

" We believe that silicone will be approved, " said Dr. Mark Jewell, an Oregon-based plastic surgeon and president of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. " I can't tell you when, but I think it will be soon. "

A spokesperson for the F.D.A. declined to comment on the rumors, saying only that the applications " are still being reviewed. "

Like the return of all thorny cultural controversies, the news of a potential silicone resurgence has resurrected not just the specter of the gooey sacs, but the old debate around them. And it is as toxic as ever. (And we should emphasize: This is a debate about cosmetic enhancement, not reconstructive surgery.)

In one corner -- the corner of the nip-tuckers and implant-makers -- the return of silicone has been hailed as everything from the triumph of science over " emotion " to, paradoxically, a victory for women. Cloaking themselves in the velvet mantle of women's defenders, they have touted silicone not only as safe, but, frequently, as a better product for women than saline: better-looking, better-feeling, the difference between " a zip-lock bag of Jell-o versus a zip-lock bag of water, " said Dr. Jewell.

" I think that we're the advocates of women who want this operation, " he continued. " These devices should be ... available for patients as choice. This is choice. "

That this language skates suspiciously close to the rhetoric of the pro-choice movement makes the whole thing all the more surreal.

And enraging to women's-rights advocates.

The news of a potential silicone comeback has not gone over well among its historic opponents in the women's movement. Sounding the old battle hymns feminist, they have grabbed their signs and science Ph.D.'s and argued that, surgeons' and silicone-makers' claims to the contrary, silicone has not been proved safe. It wasn't safe years ago, it isn't now, and the F.D.A. should not overturn its ban, they say. (Some have also accused the pro-implant warriors of spreading rumors that approval is imminent to create a climate where approval is a done deal.)

" We feel like there are enough warning signs and unanswered questions that women deserve better, " said National Women's Heath Network director Pearson. " This is a disputed product and a disputed body of [scientific] information. "

It is also a deeply symbolic product, one that hovers not just at the intersection of health and sexuality -- always a pungent brew -- but of women's health and women's sexuality.

In today's America, free-to-be-you-and-me has long since given way to lipo, face-lifts and an ever-wider array of injectables: Botox for the brows, Gore-Tex for the lips, and restylane for those pesky wrinkles around the nose and mouth. In 2005, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons reported nine million cosmetic-surgery procedures on women, up 38 percent from 2000. And while most people acknowledge that you can shave, wax, laser or strut about in pasties and still be a feminist, it's also no wonder that women's groups are freaked. Silicone is the stalwart flag of last retreat.

THE HISTORY OF THE BOOB JOB IS LONG and puckered, a Wild West-style tale of experimentation, complications and little regulation. The story begins with a Viennese doctor (of course) who tried injecting paraffin into women's breasts in the 1890's, and it continues with tales seedy and strange of doctors experimenting with everything from synthetic sponges to glass balls to industrial-grade silicone (think transformer fluid) injected directly into Vegas showgirls' breasts, according to Haiken's Venus Envy. That many of these experiments ended in less than happy results -- cysts, gangrene, a few deaths -- didn't stop doctors from experimenting anyway.

The silicone-filled breast implant arrived on the bust-enhancing scene in 1962, to excitement from doctors and enthusiasm from the press. With its handy little protective pouch, this device was to be the solution to all those hapless decades of trial and error, to say nothing of the cruel disease of bustlessness. Once again, however, the big promises went largely unquestioned and unregulated.

But in the late 1980's, the decades of scientific complacency gave way to scandal. After several critical magazine articles and an F.D.A. study linking silicone gel to cancer in rats, women began coming forward with tales of woe: ruptured implants, free-sloshing silicone (silicone in their breast cavities, their bloodstream, their lymph nodes), and symptoms that ranged from generalized aches, pains and exhaustion to arthritis and lupus.

" was at a rally in Washington, D.C., where women from all over the country came together ... and literally every woman had the same story, " recalled Carol Ciancutti-Leyva, whose mother believes that she became ill from ruptured implants, and who is now making a documentary about the subject. " Every woman had the same symptoms. "

Within short order, lawsuits were filed, the media pounced and a debate erupted. Surgeons called the allegations " junk science " -- and launched a $2 million counter-campaign -- but in 1992, after hemming, hawing and holding three days of hearings, the F.D.A. declared that manufacturers hadn't done their safety homework and removed the implants from the general-use market. When Dow Corning, the country's major silicone-implant maker, went bankrupt in 1995, the disgraced polymer seemed officially banished from the cosmetic-implant market.

In fact, it was only in temporary exile.

On Dec. 31, 2002, Inamed filed an application with the F.D.A. to begin marketing a new generation of silicone implants to mammary-challenged Americans -- a move that was followed several months later by Mentor. The companies had been emboldened by a series of studies that found no clear link between silicone and serious autoimmune disease, but their move still sparked controversy -- nearly three years of it, in fact, including several heated F.D.A. hearings, two rounds of applications (the F.D.A. turned down Inamed's first attempt) and some serious lobbying (Mentor spent $850,000 on lobbying in 2005 alone).

Such back-and-forth has done little to clarify the burning question of implant safety in the public's mind.

To listen to its boosters, silicone gel is a decidedly harmless, inert substance, the wonder material behind countless medical innovations, from testicular implants to neurosurgical shunts. " Silicone is everywhere, " said Dr. Helen Colen, a Park Avenue plastic surgeon who supports the return of silicone, though she generally prefers saline. " Your IV lines are silicone, your syringes are silicone. Everything is silicone. And yet only the breast got the raw deal? "

Beyond ubiquity, surgeons and supporters point to a pool of studies, including the much-touted 1999 Institute of Medicine Study, which did not find " statistically significant " links between silicone implants and systemic autoimmune diseases. That some of these studies also warned about an increased incidence of painful or disfiguring local complications -- like infection, rupture and a nasty-sounding condition called " capsular contracture " -- tends to get less airtime.

" Certainly, there are some local problems. Silicone gel implants got ruptured, and silicone got in the tissues, and that could produce lumps and bumps, " said Dr. Sherrell Aston, the celebrated celebrity plastic surgeon. (Many plastic surgeons dismiss rupture as a minor concern, saying it generally does not lead to serious silicone leakage these days because of sturdier implant shells and gooier silicone gels.) " But the real question is whether they produce any systemic disease, and there's no evidence in the literature to support that. "

Silicone opponents beg to differ. Not only do they warn that rupture remains a potential problem in today's new implants -- one that can lead to additional surgeries and complications -- but, they say, the literature offers a number of noteworthy examples of downright unhealthy silicone side effects, some of the scariest of which are presented in an ongoing National Cancer Institute study. Among its findings: Women with implants were two to three times as likely to die from brain cancer and respiratory cancers, and four times as likely to commit suicide, compared to other plastic-surgery patients.

As for those nasty connective-tissue ailments and autoimmune disorders about which so many women complained, implant opponents aren't convinced that silicone is innocent there, either. While a number of studies found no observable tie to these diseases, implant critics say the studies are not entirely conclusive or trustworthy. In many cases, the sample size was too small; in other cases, the studies were too short; and frequently they were funded by the implant industry -- charges that the groups have also lobbed against Inamed's and Mentor's trials of their cohesive-gel implants.

" A lot of this is a data-quality issue, " said Wood, former director of the F.D.A.'s Office of Women's Health, who resigned last year after the agency refused to approve Plan B despite evidence showing that it was safe. (The agency finally approved it last month.) " I think there needs to be a stand for high-quality data from the companies that has enough people over a long enough period of time .... Because, from what I know of what's been presented, the studies don't demonstrate that these products are safe enough for approval. "

THE F.D.A. HAS REMAINED STUBBORNLY MUM on its plans to approve, or not approve, silicone-gel implants, and the reality is that it could as easily give (or deny) its blessing tomorrow as it could over Thanksgiving, after the confirmation of the new F.D.A. commissioner, or during the next eclipse. But one thing is certain: If and when silicone plops back onto the cosmetic-implant market, it will find a ready home in American bosoms.

Between 1992 and 2005, the number of women getting breast augmentation for breast augmentation's sake bounced an eye-popping 756 percent, from less than 33,000 to more than 279,000, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. If this trend continues, the number of lady augmentees should climb a hefty heap higher next year. And should silicone get the government go-ahead, a good chunk of these women can be expected to choose the gel-filled sacs over saline -- in spite of the higher cost, in spite of the hullabaloo. Already, some women have opted to hold off on their Betty Boop dreams until silicone returns, several doctors said.

" I'm trying to find on the Internet what the newest rules on silicone are, and if/when they will be laxer, " one woman wrote on the popular implant message board, BreastImplants411. " I'm looking into a ba " -- shorthand for breast augmentation, not Bachelor of Arts -- " and only want silicone .... "

The impulse that drives some women to plump their breasts with silicone or saline -- and again, we're not talking about women who've had mastectomies -- has long been a source of inter-lady conflict. During the years of hearings, anti-implant crusaders frequently rubbed up against enhancement buffs who accused them of condescension and, yes, suppressing their right to choice -- consumer choice, that is.

" I don't understand the hatred for these products, " said Arlene Cummings, an implant veteran who runs a Web site,

Implantinfo.com, that she said gets more than one million hits a day. " It's almost like some women feel like you betrayed them, like you have ... given in to what society thinks women should look like. "

Ms. Cummings denied that such pesky impulses had anything to do with her desire to boost her bust. " It was not that way at all, " she insisted, pointing instead to an operation she had when younger to remove a breast tumor that left one breast small and underdeveloped, as well as to the vagaries of breast-feeding. " They just felt empty and saggy, " she recalled of her post-baby breasts. Her husband didn't mind, but she " hated " them.

" For me, it was so much deeper -- I just did not feel complete, " she said. " So when I filled them out, I was like, 'This is great ....' I could buy clothes; I fit into everything. It just completed me. "

But to one mother, acting student and saline-implant owner, that need for completeness is just the problem. On a recent Thursday, this woman, who gave her name as Foxy, sat perched on a vinyl barstool at Ten's World-Class Cabaret, where she works evenings to pay her tuition, talking about the decision she now regrets.

" The big deal is men ... because you want to be acceptable, " she said of the decision she made six years earlier, when she was just 23. " Unfortunately, in North America, big boobs seem to be a huge factor in our makeup of society these days -- to get through doors, or get things open, or get paid, really.

" It's an American thing, " she concluded with a quick, wry smile. " It's the American dream -- or at least it gets you one. "

� AlterNet Home

Tools:

EMAIL

PRINT

15 COMMENTS

DIGG THIS

Comments

Give Us Feedback �

Tools: [

Post a new comment] [

Login] [

Signup]

View: Threaded Minimal

Flat Flat Unthreaded

not

[

Report this comment]

Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 21, 2006 1:52 AM

In my health-minded male mind it is unreasonable and silly for a non-injured woman to have any kind of artificial breast enhancement especially if the prime motivation is to attract some silly-minded male boob.

[

� Reply to this comment] [

Post a new comment �]

Why is this story even here? AlterNet, can't you make better use of your story space?

[

Report this comment]

Posted by: Left on Oct 21, 2006 2:12 AM

Ah, but sex sells...how so very MSM of you.Suggested story: 9/11 Hijackers: where are they now? Including interviews with those wrongly identified by the FBI, and the complete history of the list the FBI put out in the first 24 hours.

Contact Jay Kolar for details.The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[

� Reply to this comment] [

Post a new comment �]

� Left: at least this one's better than... Posted by: HeroesAll

� This is important to many people Posted by:

JDBishop5

[

Report this comment]

Posted by: JDBishop5 on Oct 21, 2006 4:06 AM

I have five daughters, none of whom have shown any interest in the operation. What is the world doing to women that they so often grow up thinking this is a good idea? There should be no market, and that would end the problem. The problem is that women want it. Deal with that!

[

� Reply to this comment] [

Post a new comment �]

Silicone

[

Report this comment]

Posted by: on Oct 21, 2006 5:38 AM

" Silicone is everywhere, " said Dr. Helen Colen, a Park Avenue plastic surgeon who supports the return of silicone, though she generally prefers saline. " Your IV lines are silicone, your syringes are silicone. Everything is silicone. And yet only the breast got the raw deal? "

Those are solid silicone rubber devices so I'd say her comparison is flawed, or disingenuous. Solid silicone IS pretty damn inert - that's why it makes the best sex toys - but I imagine any breast implant filled with liquid silicone could rupture under some circumstances. It seems to me that the ideal solution would be a non-liquid gel type filling inside the implants, assuming no problems with capsule breakdown or mechanical trauma (if you're shot or stabbed in the chest I'd say implant rupture is only one of several major problems you'd have). But I don't know enough about chemical engineering to know what other problems a solid gel might have.

Wikipedia: breast implants

[

� Reply to this comment] [

Post a new comment �]

Lack of full disclosure

[

Report this comment]

Posted by: ISlamIslam on Oct 21, 2006 7:03 AM

It's one thing if people, whether men or women, choose to do something with some risk involved but with full knowledge of those risks. It's another to make a choice while not being fully aware. One thing that many plastic surgeons neglect to tell their patients is that that implants of any kind usually have a defined life span and will break down or shift position and need replacing at some time during the patient's life. People do all kinds of things I consider crazy and beyond my risk tolerance, but we ought to be free to do whatever we like to the extent possible as long as it is with full knowledge and doesn't negatively impact those around us (although a case could be made that all those fake boobs make life more difficult for those women who live with their natural endowments).

[

� Reply to this comment] [

Post a new comment �]

are we all boobs/

[

Report this comment]

Posted by: edith on Oct 21, 2006 7:13 AM

what's next on alternet " nose surgery may be dangerous to your health by ?

[

� Reply to this comment] [

Post a new comment �]

Tattoos, piercings, labrets and breast implants

[

Report this comment]

Posted by: pawprints on Oct 21, 2006 7:42 AM

All this body art is the same stuff. Being tattooed can't be any more challenging than getting breast implants. Having your lip stretched out with a wooden disc in it has been a custom in certain cultures for many generations. Remember the neck-rings that stretched the neck, and incidentally cut off breathing? Plastic surgeons must be rubbing their latex gloved hands together in anticipation of windfall income. A whole new generation of women are awaiting the FDA's permission to go all-out jiggly.

[

� Reply to this comment] [

Post a new comment �]

Do I detect a sexist bias in this article?

[

Report this comment]

Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 21, 2006 8:24 AM

After all, it's not just women who suffer from appearance anxiety in our advertising-dominated culture. It's not just women who are deliberately made to feel inadequate and unattractive, so that they will buy things that will fill the internal void of self-loathing. It's not just women who feel the societal pressure to be eternally young...oh forget it! Noone understands!

You know, my silicon pectoral and calf enhancements make me feel good about myself - and what's wrong with that? When my hair turns gray I'll get it dyed, and if it falls out I'll have new hair surgically implanted - and I'll do my best to alway date women who are much younger than I am, particularly as I age, because it makes me feel good about myself, particularly when I can look at an advertisement and say to myself - " Hey - that could be me up there! I'm just like that! "

So lay off the women and their silicone or saline implants - and quit ignoring the men, okay? Some of us actually care about our appearance, you know. Even with my huge pecs and calves, I must admit I'm still feeling a little 'inadequate' - perhaps I'll have some other body part augmented as well.

Truth is stranger than fiction... and so is American culture.

[

� Reply to this comment] [

Post a new comment �]

� RE: Do I detect a sexist bias in this article? Posted by: writeval

� RE: Do I detect a sexist bias in this article? Posted by: ethanay

crazy

[

Report this comment]

Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 21, 2006 9:14 AM

The science wasn't there for a ban. I can see how it would be useful for women who need them due to cancer or some kind of accident, like most all plastic or reconstructive surgery, but in general its crazy to be putting anything into your body unless its medically necessary. Of course, men do it do (not usually to the excess that women due) but hair plants, attempts to lengthen their member, etc. I just laugh at some couples who have 'perfected' their bodies by surgeries and wonder what it will be like when they spit out ugly kids! Won't they feel nice in the family photos with medically perfect parents and some buck-toothed, roman-nosed kids!

[

� Reply to this comment] [

Post a new comment �]

blood, guts and gore...

[

Report this comment]

Posted by: ethanay on Oct 21, 2006 9:36 AM

they don't make me queasy...but just reading about this...and I was incredulous that Gore-Tex is now used inside lips? I had to look that up, and almost threw up. (this from someone who can watch and talk nonchalantly on just about any other gross topic) This is just disgusting on many levels!

This isn't women's rights...this is about a culture that makes people insecure about any type of variation from a commercially-defined vision of aesthetic perfection, and then supports and encourages that insecurity in order to make a lot of money. There are a lot of definitions and examples of " beautiful " in this world that I accept. Some--in particular women--I find attractive on various levels. This sure as hell ain't one of them.

We need to teach people to distinguish between being healthy in relation to and happy with your body type vs playing into a society and culture that wants you to feel otherwise. It's education, but something our education system largely ignores except in a few outstanding health and PE teachers' curriculums (which amounts to passive official acceptance of the status quo)

[

� Reply to this comment] [

Post a new comment �]

Dave

[

Report this comment]

Posted by: tokendave on Oct 21, 2006 9:44 AM

It's all about money isn't it? The greedy purveyors of these inaccurately dubbed " medical devices " have found an easy route to renewed riches through Health Canada, a Canadian government organization renowned for its willingness to fast track unproven technologies in exchange for a little palm greasing.

See this story.All that's needed is a foothold in Canada for the multinationals to successfully argue, under well established trade agreements, for renewed sale of breast implants in the much larger U.S. market. Capitalism at its finest.

[

� Reply to this comment] [

Post a new comment �]

Home

Top Stories

Columnists

Video

Blogs

Discuss

RSS/XML

About

Search

Donate

Contact Us

Advertise

Reproduction of material from any AlterNet pages without written permission is strictly prohibited.� 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

Gail

[Guest guest]

Ilena, thanks for this. Very good article. Well-written.

Love & Blessings,

Sunny

--- In , " Ilena Rose " <colibrimama@...>

wrote:

>

> *Thanks to Gail Hamilton for forwarding this for us ... good place

for

> comments as this is a highly read site.*

>

> *http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/#comments*

>

> *Will Silicone Bounce Back?*

>

> *By **Lizzy Ratner* <http://www.alternet.org/authors/6001/>*, **New

York

> Observer* <http://observer.com/>*. Posted **October 21,

> 2006*<http://www.alternet.org/ts/archives/?date[F]=10 & date[Y]

=2006 & date[d]=21 & act=Go/>

> *.*

> *Silicone Breast Implants*

>

> *There are certain grand historical fights that you think are over,

tucked

> into the quaint Snoopy lunchbox of the past like a Capri Sun or

bologna

> sandwich. Remember the Dalkon Shield I.U.D. uproar of the 1970's,

with its

> controversial whiff of scientific profit over women's safety? Or

what about

> the silicone-breast-implant scandals of the early 1990's? When

> silicone-boob-makers were all but run out of town as woman after

woman came

> forward with ghoulish tales of ruptured implants and strange

> autoimmune-style ailments? Those were crazy days.*

>

> *But sometimes the merry-go-round of culture swoops back around,

depositing

> the old controversies right back in front of you like a stomping,

pouty kid.

> Time slips back, and despite all other indications of social or at

least

> temporal progress, the disgraced, buried past returns. Like Dick

Cheney. Or

> creationism. Or, yes, silicone-boob jobs.*

>

> *Throughout the last few months, rumors have been whipping through

the

> breast-augmentation world that the Food and Drug Administration is

on the

> verge of returning silicone implants to the open market after a 14-

year

> partial ban on the gel-filled bosom enhancers. The ban, which came

down in

> 1992, had never fully eradicated silicone -- women who had endured

> mastectomies or had a breast " deformity " or agreed to participate

in a study

> could still opt for the gel -- but the average Pamela

groupie, the

> cosmetic breast enhancer, was out of luck. She had to make do with

saline.*

>

> *But last summer, the F.D.A. sent word to two competing implant

> manufacturers, Inamed and the Mentor Corporation, that their

applications to

> sell a new generation of silicone-filled sacs were " approvable with

> conditions. " And since then, whispers of an imminent F.D.A.

decision date --

> the most recent centered on July 4 -- have regularly sifted through

the

> country's plastic-surgery capitals, from the C-cup-loving streets

of New

> York to the D-cup-worshipping beaches of California and Texas.

(Implant size

> is, apparently, the one area where New Yorkers are more

conservative than

> Texans.)*

>

> *In a sign of just how confident the manufacturers are in the

> F.D.A.'sintentions, both Inamed and Mentor have included revenue

from

> silicone

> implants in their 2006 earnings projections, CNNMoney.com reported.*

>

> * " We believe that silicone will be approved, " said Dr. Mark Jewell,

an

> Oregon-based plastic surgeon and president of the American Society

for

> Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. " I can't tell you when, but I think it

will be

> soon. " *

>

> *A spokesperson for the F.D.A. declined to comment on the rumors,

saying

> only that the applications " are still being reviewed. " *

>

> *Like the return of all thorny cultural controversies, the news of a

> potential silicone resurgence has resurrected not just the specter

of the

> gooey sacs, but the old debate around them. And it is as toxic as

ever. (And

> we should emphasize: This is a debate about cosmetic enhancement,

not

> reconstructive surgery.)*

>

> *In one corner -- the corner of the nip-tuckers and implant-makers -

- the

> return of silicone has been hailed as everything from the triumph

of science

> over " emotion " to, paradoxically, a victory for women. Cloaking

themselves

> in the velvet mantle of women's defenders, they have touted

silicone not

> only as safe, but, frequently, as a better product for women than

saline:

> better-looking, better-feeling, the difference between " a zip-lock

bag of

> Jell-o versus a zip-lock bag of water, " said Dr. Jewell.*

>

> * " I think that we're the advocates of women who want this

operation, " he

> continued. " These devices should be ... available for patients as

choice.

> This is choice. " *

>

> *That this language skates suspiciously close to the rhetoric of the

> pro-choice movement makes the whole thing all the more surreal.*

>

> *And enraging to women's-rights advocates.*

>

> *The news of a potential silicone comeback has not gone over well

among its

> historic opponents in the women's movement. Sounding the old battle

hymns

> feminist, they have grabbed their signs and science Ph.D.'s and

argued that,

> surgeons' and silicone-makers' claims to the contrary, silicone has

not been

> proved safe. It wasn't safe years ago, it isn't now, and the F.D.A.

should

> not overturn its ban, they say. (Some have also accused the pro-

implant

> warriors of spreading rumors that approval is imminent to create a

climate

> where approval is a done deal.)*

>

> * " We feel like there are enough warning signs and unanswered

questions that

> women deserve better, " said National Women's Heath Network director

> Pearson. " This is a disputed product and a disputed body of

[scientific]

> information. " *

>

> *It is also a deeply symbolic product, one that hovers not just at

the

> intersection of health and sexuality -- always a pungent brew --

but of

> women's health and women's sexuality.*

>

> *In today's America, free-to-be-you-and-me has long since given way

to lipo,

> face-lifts and an ever-wider array of injectables: Botox for the

brows,

> Gore-Tex for the lips, and restylane for those pesky wrinkles

around the

> nose and mouth. In 2005, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons

reported

> nine million cosmetic-surgery procedures on women, up 38 percent

from 2000.

> And while most people acknowledge that you can shave, wax, laser or

strut

> about in pasties and still be a feminist, it's also no wonder that

women's

> groups are freaked. Silicone is the stalwart flag of last retreat.*

>

> **

>

> *THE HISTORY OF THE BOOB JOB IS LONG and puckered, a Wild West-

style tale of

> experimentation, complications and little regulation. The story

begins with

> a Viennese doctor (of course) who tried injecting paraffin into

women's

> breasts in the 1890's, and it continues with tales seedy and

strange of

> doctors experimenting with everything from synthetic sponges to

glass balls

> to industrial-grade silicone (think transformer fluid) injected

directly

> into Vegas showgirls' breasts, according to Haiken's

Venus Envy.

> That many of these experiments ended in less than happy results --

cysts,

> gangrene, a few deaths -- didn't stop doctors from experimenting

anyway.*

>

> *The silicone-filled breast implant arrived on the bust-enhancing

scene in

> 1962, to excitement from doctors and enthusiasm from the press.

With its

> handy little protective pouch, this device was to be the solution

to all

> those hapless decades of trial and error, to say nothing of the

cruel

> disease of bustlessness. Once again, however, the big promises went

largely

> unquestioned and unregulated.*

>

> *But in the late 1980's, the decades of scientific complacency gave

way to

> scandal. After several critical magazine articles and an F.D.A.

study

> linking silicone gel to cancer in rats, women began coming forward

with

> tales of woe: ruptured implants, free-sloshing silicone (silicone

in their

> breast cavities, their bloodstream, their lymph nodes), and

symptoms that

> ranged from generalized aches, pains and exhaustion to arthritis

and lupus.*

>

> * " was at a rally in Washington, D.C., where women from all over

the

> country came together ... and literally every woman had the same

story, "

> recalled Carol Ciancutti-Leyva, whose mother believes that she

became ill

> from ruptured implants, and who is now making a documentary about

the

> subject. " Every woman had the same symptoms. " *

>

> *Within short order, lawsuits were filed, the media pounced and a

debate

> erupted. Surgeons called the allegations " junk science " -- and

launched a $2

> million counter-campaign -- but in 1992, after hemming, hawing and

holding

> three days of hearings, the F.D.A. declared that manufacturers

hadn't done

> their safety homework and removed the implants from the general-use

market.

> When Dow Corning, the country's major silicone-implant maker, went

bankrupt

> in 1995, the disgraced polymer seemed officially banished from the

> cosmetic-implant market.*

>

> *In fact, it was only in temporary exile.*

>

> *On Dec. 31, 2002, Inamed filed an application with the F.D.A. to

begin

> marketing a new generation of silicone implants to mammary-

challenged

> Americans -- a move that was followed several months later by

Mentor. The

> companies had been emboldened by a series of studies that found no

clear

> link between silicone and serious autoimmune disease, but their

move still

> sparked controversy -- nearly three years of it, in fact, including

several

> heated F.D.A. hearings, two rounds of applications (the F.D.A.

turned down

> Inamed's first attempt) and some serious lobbying (Mentor spent

$850,000 on

> lobbying in 2005 alone).*

>

> *Such back-and-forth has done little to clarify the burning

question of

> implant safety in the public's mind.*

>

> *To listen to its boosters, silicone gel is a decidedly harmless,

inert

> substance, the wonder material behind countless medical

innovations, from

> testicular implants to neurosurgical shunts. " Silicone is

everywhere, " said

> Dr. Helen Colen, a Park Avenue plastic surgeon who supports the

return of

> silicone, though she generally prefers saline. " Your IV lines are

silicone,

> your syringes are silicone. Everything is silicone. And yet only

the breast

> got the raw deal? " *

>

> *Beyond ubiquity, surgeons and supporters point to a pool of

studies,

> including the much-touted 1999 Institute of Medicine Study, which

did not

> find " statistically significant " links between silicone implants and

> systemic autoimmune diseases. That some of these studies also

warned about

> an increased incidence of painful or disfiguring local

complications -- like

> infection, rupture and a nasty-sounding condition called " capsular

> contracture " -- tends to get less airtime.*

>

> * " Certainly, there are some local problems. Silicone gel implants

got

> ruptured, and silicone got in the tissues, and that could produce

lumps and

> bumps, " said Dr. Sherrell Aston, the celebrated celebrity plastic

surgeon.

> (Many plastic surgeons dismiss rupture as a minor concern, saying it

> generally does not lead to serious silicone leakage these days

because of

> sturdier implant shells and gooier silicone gels.) " But the real

question is

> whether they produce any systemic disease, and there's no evidence

in the

> literature to support that. " *

>

> *Silicone opponents beg to differ. Not only do they warn that

rupture

> remains a potential problem in today's new implants -- one that can

lead to

> additional surgeries and complications -- but, they say, the

literature

> offers a number of noteworthy examples of downright unhealthy

silicone side

> effects, some of the scariest of which are presented in an ongoing

National

> Cancer Institute study. Among its findings: Women with implants

were two to

> three times as likely to die from brain cancer and respiratory

cancers, and

> four times as likely to commit suicide, compared to other plastic-

surgery

> patients.*

>

> *As for those nasty connective-tissue ailments and autoimmune

disorders

> about which so many women complained, implant opponents aren't

convinced

> that silicone is innocent there, either. While a number of studies

found no

> observable tie to these diseases, implant critics say the studies

are not

> entirely conclusive or trustworthy. In many cases, the sample size

was too

> small; in other cases, the studies were too short; and frequently

they were

> funded by the implant industry -- charges that the groups have also

lobbed

> against Inamed's and Mentor's trials of their cohesive-gel

implants.*

>

> * " A lot of this is a data-quality issue, " said Wood, former

director

> of the F.D.A.'s Office of Women's Health, who resigned last year

after the

> agency refused to approve Plan B despite evidence showing that it

was safe.

> (The agency finally approved it last month.) " I think there needs

to be a

> stand for high-quality data from the companies that has enough

people over a

> long enough period of time .... Because, from what I know of what's

been

> presented, the studies don't demonstrate that these products are

safe enough

> for approval. " *

>

> **

>

> *THE F.D.A. HAS REMAINED STUBBORNLY MUM on its plans to approve, or

not

> approve, silicone-gel implants, and the reality is that it could as

easily

> give (or deny) its blessing tomorrow as it could over Thanksgiving,

after

> the confirmation of the new F.D.A. commissioner, or during the next

eclipse.

> But one thing is certain: If and when silicone plops back onto the

> cosmetic-implant market, it will find a ready home in American

bosoms.*

>

> *Between 1992 and 2005, the number of women getting breast

augmentation for

> breast augmentation's sake bounced an eye-popping 756 percent, from

less

> than 33,000 to more than 279,000, according to the American Society

of

> Plastic Surgeons. If this trend continues, the number of lady

augmentees

> should climb a hefty heap higher next year. And should silicone get

the

> government go-ahead, a good chunk of these women can be expected to

choose

> the gel-filled sacs over saline -- in spite of the higher cost, in

spite of

> the hullabaloo. Already, some women have opted to hold off on their

Betty

> Boop dreams until silicone returns, several doctors said.*

>

> * " I'm trying to find on the Internet what the newest rules on

silicone are,

> and if/when they will be laxer, " one woman wrote on the popular

implant

> message board, BreastImplants411. " I'm looking into a ba " --

shorthand for

> breast augmentation, not Bachelor of Arts -- " and only want

silicone .... " *

>

> *The impulse that drives some women to plump their breasts with

silicone or

> saline -- and again, we're not talking about women who've had

mastectomies

> -- has long been a source of inter-lady conflict. During the years

of

> hearings, anti-implant crusaders frequently rubbed up against

enhancement

> buffs who accused them of condescension and, yes, suppressing their

right to

> choice -- consumer choice, that is.*

>

> * " I don't understand the hatred for these products, " said Arlene

> Cummings, an implant veteran who runs a Web site,

> **Implantinfo.com*<http://implantinfo.com/>

> *, that she said gets more than one million hits a day. " It's

almost like

> some women feel like you betrayed them, like you have ... given in

to what

> society thinks women should look like. " *

>

> *Ms. Cummings denied that such pesky impulses had anything to do

with her

> desire to boost her bust. " It was not that way at all, " she

insisted,

> pointing instead to an operation she had when younger to remove a

breast

> tumor that left one breast small and underdeveloped, as well as to

the

> vagaries of breast-feeding. " They just felt empty and saggy, " she

recalled

> of her post-baby breasts. Her husband didn't mind, but she " hated "

them.*

>

> * " For me, it was so much deeper -- I just did not feel complete, "

she said.

> " So when I filled them out, I was like, 'This is great ....' I

could buy

> clothes; I fit into everything. It just completed me. " *

>

> *But to one mother, acting student and saline-implant owner, that

need for

> completeness is just the problem. On a recent Thursday, this woman,

who gave

> her name as Foxy, sat perched on a vinyl barstool at Ten's World-

Class

> Cabaret, where she works evenings to pay her tuition, talking about

the

> decision she now regrets.*

>

> * " The big deal is men ... because you want to be acceptable, " she

said of

> the decision she made six years earlier, when she was just 23.

> " Unfortunately, in North America, big boobs seem to be a huge

factor in our

> makeup of society these days -- to get through doors, or get things

open, or

> get paid, really.*

>

> * " It's an American thing, " she concluded with a quick, wry

smile. " It's the

> American dream -- or at least it gets you one. " *

>

> *� AlterNet Home* <http://www.alternet.org/> *Tools:* *[image:

email]EMAIL

> * <http://www.alternet.org/module/email/?storyID=43231> *[image:

print]PRINT

> * <http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/43231> * 15

> COMMENTS*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/#comments>

> * DIGG THIS*<http://digg.com/submit?

phase=2 & url=http://www.alternet.org/story/43231>

>

> * *

> *Comments* *Give Us Feedback �*

> <http://www.alternet.org/feedback.html> *Tools:

> [**Post a new comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=post#comments>

> *] [**Login* <http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=login>*] [**

> Signup* <http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?comments=signup>*]

* *View:

> * Threaded Minimal Flat Flat Unthreaded* * **

> *not

> * *[**Report this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=report & cID=264211 & sID=43231>

> *] *

> *Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 21, 2006 1:52 AM

> *

> *In my health-minded male mind it is unreasonable and silly for a

> non-injured woman to have any kind of artificial breast enhancement

> especially if the prime motivation is to attract some silly-minded

male

> boob.

> *

>

> *[**� Reply to this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=reply & pID=264211#comments>

> *] [**Post a new comment

> �*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?comments=post#comments>

> *] *

> *Why is this story even here? AlterNet, can't you make better use

of your

> story space?

> * *[**Report this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=report & cID=264215 & sID=43231>

> *] *

> *Posted by: Left on Oct 21, 2006 2:12 AM

> *

> *Ah, but sex sells...

>

> how so very MSM of you.

>

> Suggested story: 9/11 Hijackers: where are they now? Including

interviews

> with those wrongly identified by the FBI, and the complete history

of the

> list the FBI put out in the first 24 hours.

>

> Contact Jay Kolar for details.

>

> The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

> *

>

> *[**� Reply to this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=reply & pID=264215#comments>

> *] [**Post a new comment

> �*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?comments=post#comments>

> *] *

> � Left: at least this one's better

> than...<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=view & cID=264221 & pID=264215#c264221>

> Posted

> by: HeroesAll

> � This is important to many

> people<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=view & cID=264809 & pID=264215#c264809>

> Posted

> by:

> *JDBishop5

> * *[**Report this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=report & cID=264488 & sID=43231>

> *] *

> *Posted by: JDBishop5 on Oct 21, 2006 4:06 AM

> *

> *I have five daughters, none of whom have shown any interest in the

> operation. What is the world doing to women that they so often grow

up

> thinking this is a good idea? There should be no market, and that

would end

> the problem. The problem is that women want it.

>

> Deal with that!

> *

>

> *[**� Reply to this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=reply & pID=264488#comments>

> *] [**Post a new comment

> �*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?comments=post#comments>

> *] *

> *Silicone

> * *[**Report this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=report & cID=264808 & sID=43231>

> *] *

> *Posted by: on Oct 21, 2006 5:38 AM

> *

> * " Silicone is everywhere, " said Dr. Helen Colen, a Park Avenue

plastic

> surgeon who supports the return of silicone, though she generally

prefers

> saline. " Your IV lines are silicone, your syringes are silicone.

Everything

> is silicone. And yet only the breast got the raw deal? "

>

> Those are solid silicone rubber devices so I'd say her comparison

is flawed,

> or disingenuous. Solid silicone IS pretty damn inert - that's why

it makes

> the best sex toys - but I imagine any breast implant filled with

liquid

> silicone could rupture under some circumstances. It seems to me

that the

> ideal solution would be a non-liquid gel type filling inside the

implants,

> assuming no problems with capsule breakdown or mechanical trauma

(if you're

> shot or stabbed in the chest I'd say implant rupture is only one of

several

> major problems you'd have). But I don't know enough about chemical

> engineering to know what other problems a solid gel might have.

>

> **Wikipedia: breast implants*

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_implant>*

> *

>

> *[**� Reply to this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=reply & pID=264808#comments>

> *] [**Post a new comment

> �*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?comments=post#comments>

> *] *

> *Lack of full disclosure

> * *[**Report this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=report & cID=264850 & sID=43231>

> *] *

> *Posted by: ISlamIslam on Oct 21, 2006 7:03 AM

> *

> *It's one thing if people, whether men or women, choose to do

something with

> some risk involved but with full knowledge of those risks. It's

another to

> make a choice while not being fully aware. One thing that many

plastic

> surgeons neglect to tell their patients is that that implants of

any kind

> usually have a defined life span and will break down or shift

position and

> need replacing at some time during the patient's life. People do

all kinds

> of things I consider crazy and beyond my risk tolerance, but we

ought to be

> free to do whatever we like to the extent possible as long as it is

with

> full knowledge and doesn't negatively impact those around us

(although a

> case could be made that all those fake boobs make life more

difficult for

> those women who live with their natural endowments).

> *

>

> *[**� Reply to this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=reply & pID=264850#comments>

> *] [**Post a new comment

> �*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?comments=post#comments>

> *] *

> *are we all boobs/

> * *[**Report this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=report & cID=264854 & sID=43231>

> *] *

> *Posted by: edith on Oct 21, 2006 7:13 AM

> *

> *what's next on alternet " nose surgery may be dangerous to your

health by

> ?

> *

>

> *[**� Reply to this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=reply & pID=264854#comments>

> *] [**Post a new comment

> �*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?comments=post#comments>

> *] *

> *Tattoos, piercings, labrets and breast implants

> * *[**Report this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=report & cID=264866 & sID=43231>

> *] *

> *Posted by: pawprints on Oct 21, 2006 7:42 AM

> *

> *All this body art is the same stuff. Being tattooed can't be any

more

> challenging than getting breast implants. Having your lip stretched

out with

> a wooden disc in it has been a custom in certain cultures for many

> generations. Remember the neck-rings that stretched the neck, and

> incidentally cut off breathing? Plastic surgeons must be rubbing

their latex

> gloved hands together in anticipation of windfall income. A whole

new

> generation of women are awaiting the FDA's permission to go all-out

jiggly.

> *

>

> *[**� Reply to this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=reply & pID=264866#comments>

> *] [**Post a new comment

> �*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?comments=post#comments>

> *] *

> *Do I detect a sexist bias in this article?

> * *[**Report this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=report & cID=264889 & sID=43231>

> *] *

> *Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 21, 2006 8:24 AM

> *

> *After all, it's not just women who suffer from appearance anxiety

in our

> advertising-dominated culture. It's not just women who are

deliberately made

> to feel inadequate and unattractive, so that they will buy things

that will

> fill the internal void of self-loathing. It's not just women who

feel the

> societal pressure to be eternally young...oh forget it! Noone

understands!

>

> You know, my silicon pectoral and calf enhancements make me feel

good about

> myself - and what's wrong with that?

>

> When my hair turns gray I'll get it dyed, and if it falls out I'll

have new

> hair surgically implanted - and I'll do my best to alway date women

who are

> much younger than I am, particularly as I age, because it makes me

feel good

> about myself, particularly when I can look at an advertisement and

say to

> myself - " Hey - that could be me up there! I'm just like that! "

>

> So lay off the women and their silicone or saline implants - and

quit

> ignoring the men, okay? Some of us actually care about our

appearance, you

> know. Even with my huge pecs and calves, I must admit I'm still

feeling a

> little 'inadequate' - perhaps I'll have some other body part

augmented as

> well.

>

> Truth is stranger than fiction... and so is American culture.

> *

>

> *[**� Reply to this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=reply & pID=264889#comments>

> *] [**Post a new comment

> �*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?comments=post#comments>

> *] *

> � RE: Do I detect a sexist bias in this

> article?<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=view & cID=264928 & pID=264889#c264928>

> Posted

> by: writeval

> � RE: Do I detect a sexist bias in this

> article?<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=view & cID=264952 & pID=264889#c264952>

> Posted

> by: ethanay

> *crazy

> * *[**Report this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=report & cID=264912 & sID=43231>

> *] *

> *Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 21, 2006 9:14 AM

> *

> *The science wasn't there for a ban. I can see how it would be

useful for

> women who need them due to cancer or some kind of accident, like

most all

> plastic or reconstructive surgery, but in general its crazy to be

putting

> anything into your body unless its medically necessary. Of course,

men do it

> do (not usually to the excess that women due) but hair plants,

attempts to

> lengthen their member, etc. I just laugh at some couples who have

> 'perfected' their bodies by surgeries and wonder what it will be

like when

> they spit out ugly kids! Won't they feel nice in the family photos

with

> medically perfect parents and some buck-toothed, roman-nosed kids!

> *

>

> *[**� Reply to this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=reply & pID=264912#comments>

> *] [**Post a new comment

> �*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?comments=post#comments>

> *] *

> *blood, guts and gore...

> * *[**Report this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=report & cID=264932 & sID=43231>

> *] *

> *Posted by: ethanay on Oct 21, 2006 9:36 AM

> *

> *they don't make me queasy...but just reading about this...and I was

> incredulous that Gore-Tex is now used inside lips? I had to look

that up,

> and almost threw up. (this from someone who can watch and talk

nonchalantly

> on just about any other gross topic) This is just disgusting on

many levels!

>

> This isn't women's rights...this is about a culture that makes

people

> insecure about any type of variation from a commercially-defined

vision of

> aesthetic perfection, and then supports and encourages that

insecurity in

> order to make a lot of money. There are a lot of definitions and

examples of

> " beautiful " in this world that I accept. Some--in particular women--

I find

> attractive on various levels. This sure as hell ain't one of them.

>

> We need to teach people to distinguish between being healthy in

relation to

> and happy with your body type vs playing into a society and culture

that

> wants you to feel otherwise. It's education, but something our

education

> system largely ignores except in a few outstanding health and PE

teachers'

> curriculums (which amounts to passive official acceptance of the

status quo)

>

> *

>

> *[**� Reply to this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=reply & pID=264932#comments>

> *] [**Post a new comment

> �*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?comments=post#comments>

> *] *

> *Dave

> * *[**Report this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=report & cID=264938 & sID=43231>

> *] *

> *Posted by: tokendave on Oct 21, 2006 9:44 AM

> *

> *It's all about money isn't it?

>

> The greedy purveyors of these inaccurately dubbed " medical devices "

have

> found an easy route to renewed riches through Health Canada, a

Canadian

> government organization renowned for its willingness to fast track

unproven

> technologies in exchange for a little palm greasing.

>

> **See this

story.*<http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?

id=637ceee1-3f4a-4844-8d05->

>

> *All that's needed is a foothold in Canada for the multinationals to

> successfully argue, under well established trade agreements, for

renewed

> sale of breast implants in the much larger U.S. market.

>

> Capitalism at its finest.

> *

>

> *[**� Reply to this

> comment*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?

comments=reply & pID=264938#comments>

> *] [**Post a new comment

> �*<http://www.alternet.org/stories/43231/?comments=post#comments>

> *] *

>

> - *Home* <http://www.alternet.org/>* *

> - *Top Stories* <http://www.alternet.org/topstories/>* *

> - *Columnists* <http://www.alternet.org/columnists/>* *

> - *Video* <http://www.alternet.org/video/>* *

> - *Blogs* <http://www.alternet.org/blogs/>* *

> - *Discuss* <http://www.alternet.org/discuss/>* *

> - *RSS/XML* <http://www.alternet.org/webfeeds/>* *

> - *About* <http://www.alternet.org/about/>* *

> - *Search* <http://www.alternet.org/search/>* *

> - *Donate* <http://www.alternet.org/donate/>* *

> - *Contact Us* <http://www.alternet.org/feedback/>* *

> - *Advertise* <http://www.alternet.org/advertise/>* *

>

> *Reproduction of material from any AlterNet pages without written

permission

> is strictly prohibited.

> � 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.*

> **

>

>

>

> *Gail *

>