Deena Dlusy-Apel

Don’t get me wrong; breast cancer gets much more attention than it used to – but it is the wrong kind of attention. In 1988 when I was first diagnosed with breast cancer, we whispered in the waiting rooms about our diagnoses; we searched for information and wanted to know more. There was very little information available about breast cancer. People did not think this was something that could happen to them, and if it did, it certainly was not something to talk about. I have learned a tremendous amount since then, and I have watched with interest as breast cancer first came out of the closet and then became a corporate monster.

Over the years I have come to believe that no one knows why many women get breast cancer. Women who carry the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes comprise only 5-10 percent of the breast cancer population. If we also consider certain life style factors such as diet, smoking, exercise, time of first period and number of pregnancies a woman has had, and the age of menopause, we might account for 50% of the known or suspected causes of the disease. What, then, is causing an increase in breast cancer? We at BCAM have come to believe there are environmental links to breast cancer; in my capacity as a board member of BCAM since 1992, I have heard dozens of scientists, doctors, and epidemiologists who have led me to believe this.
In 1997 my husband and I, along with other BCAM members, attended the first World Conference on Breast Cancer in Kingston, Ontario. We had a rude awakening. When we arrived, we found black vinyl bags on our seats. One of the first speakers held up a bag and talked about the fact that it was made of polyvinyl chloride, a suspected cancer-causing chemical. He also shocked us by telling us that the hand cream samples on the seats contained parabens, which are known hormone disrupters.

At the same conference, outspoken American activist Judy Brady bluntly told delegates, “I am sick of the overload of papers at this conference focusing on the fact that there is an epidemic of breast cancer without questioning why.” She also informed us that the little pink ribbon we had begun to associate with breast cancer was the creation of a partnership between Estee Lauder and Self magazine, in conjunction with that magazine’s 1992 second annual Breast Cancer Awareness Month issue. I was shocked to learn as well that AstraZeneca, which manufactures the breast cancer drugs Arimidex and Tamoxifen, founded the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in1985.

The first time I heard Dr. Sandra Steingraber speak was also at the conference in Kingston. She began by telling the audience that her mother had a certain type of cancer, her brother had another type, and that she had had bladder cancer in her twenties. Then she dropped the bombshell – she had been adopted – and she went on to explain how living near the polluted Great Lakes was the cause of her cancer. At this point, most people in the audience were listening intently! Now 50, Sandra is a leading environmental justice advocate who speaks and writes extensively about environmental links to breast cancer. She never fails to impress me regarding the importance of environmentally-related research into the disease.

In addition, I have come to share the views of Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Occupa­tional Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, whose ideas at first seemed radical. As Judy Brady wrote in Yes! Magazine (September 2005),

“He points to some of the industries that have permeated our water, air, soil, and food with carcinogenic substances because it is cheaper and easier to pollute than to protect public health. He points to regulatory agencies which fail to put the brakes on industrial pollution. He points to elected officials who are wooed away from their duty to protect public health by industry lobbies and industry money. He points to members of the scientific community who appear more interested in lucrative research and policy-making careers than in identifying and exposing the ways in which the carcinogens surrounding us make us sick. And he points to what he calls the ‘cancer establishment,’ public and private organizations charged with fighting the war on cancer – principally the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), which spend enormous sums of taxpayer and charity money but have failed to stem the epidemic.”

Over the past few years, many have come to understand that we have little chance of avoiding the toxins that permeate our bodies; foetuses are being exposed to toxins while developing in the womb, and babies are born with them already in their bodies. Devra L. Davis, Ph.D., a leading epidemiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, has proposed that breast cancer is caused by dozens of common, synthetic chemicals that mimic the female hormone estrogen.

...it is cheaper and easier to pollute than to protect public health.

When BCAM developed the PowerPoint presentation, Breast Cancer As We See It, with the help of ­then-president Janine O’Leary Cobb, these effects were defined. We showed that after the Second World War, companies turned their production from plastics used for the war effort to plastics used in consumer goods, and people were exposed to massive amounts of chemicals that would ultimately harm them. The BCAM website has extensive information on this subject.

Samantha King, Associate Professor of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University, in her 2006 book, Pink Ribbons, Inc: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy, describes how breast cancer has been transformed from a serious disease and individual tragedy into a market-driven industry – it seems we have all come to recognize October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month! This now means that anyone can purchase anything from jeans to yogurt – and even Kentucky Fried Chicken, toilet paper and bridal gowns – knowing that a portion of their spending (a portion of what, ­exactly?) will be donated to breast cancer, undoubtedly for finding a cure – not the cause. In this way, consumers seem to feel that they have done something for the breast cancer cause.

This had always felt wrong to me for a number of reasons. First, because a company would receive a disproportionate amount of attention and goodwill from the (often capped) amount they donate to breast cancer. Second, the money that actually is donated almost always has been used to search for a cure. I learned that 95% of the money collected for breast cancer research went toward finding a cure versus only 5% that is used to research prevention. In the meantime, more and more women are being diagnosed, and at a younger age.

We are reminded of the corporate campaigns each October when pink ­products flood the marketplace. On one of our October Prevention is the Cure marches, I approached a woman passerby to give her our information list of toxic ingredients to avoid in personal-care products. Not knowing what I was giving her and assuming it was a solicitation, she responded that she had already made a purchase this month for breast cancer. People feel that they are being helpful by buying goods – we feel they are being deceived.

I do not deny the need for research into treatment and am thankful for the care I received. But I strongly believe that we must allocate a much larger proportion of all research money toward learning how to prevent breast cancer, and in particular, toward determining its suspected environmental causes. In support of this goal, the government must regulate the chemicals that are placed in our personal-care products and in our food. We want a more informed public to demand stricter laws regarding the use of all chemicals.
Next October, let’s hope to see fewer pink ribbons – and let’s focus more on the environmental causes of breast cancer. We want to stop breast cancer before it starts.