It is officially “Pinktober.” We currently find ourselves in the middle of Breast Cancer Awareness month, and considering that breast cancer is likely to affect about 1 in every 8 women born today, it is certainly a cause worthy of our attention. We are all familiar with the ribbon, the walks, the fundraisers, etc., and while I appreciate the fact that multiple organizations and individuals feel the need to draw attention to this issue (cancer is the second leading cause of death in America, and should, therefore, act as the recipient of much of the available research funding and should be the focus of significant scientific investigation), I feel obligated to express a few concerns.

I'll begin by defining a term that many may be unfamiliar with: "pinkwashing."

According to the Breast Cancer Action (BCAction) network, a “pinkwasher” is “a company or organization that claims to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink ribbon product, but at the same time produces, manufactures, and/or sells products that are linked to the disease.”

The Breast Cancer Action network, the mission of which is to achieve “justice for all women at risk of and living with breast cancer,” is dedicated to exposing the often questionable motives behind various companies’ and organizations’ efforts to promote breast cancer awareness through the sale and/or manufacturing of products that boast the ubiquitous pink ribbon. These products often feature claims which state that a portion of the proceeds will go towards breast cancer research. Customers are automatically drawn to these products for various reasons. Many people recognize that cancer is both a very real issue as well as one for which we do not currently have particularly effective treatments. The fact that Western medicine routinely fails cancer patients leads many consumers to conclude that there is still much to be done in the way of research. Surely we can eliminate cancer if we continue to throw money at it, right? Not necessarily. In 1971, when president Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act, many were hopeful that this horrible and, in the case of breast cancer, often disfiguring disease would soon be eradicated. Unfortunately, this was not the case. 45 years later, according to Cancer.gov, an estimated 1,685,210 people will be diagnosed with cancer in 2016, and it will claim the lives of an estimated 595,690 people. Fortunately, the statistics specific to breast cancer are somewhat less dismal: about 40,450 women are expected to die of breast cancer in 2016, a small, albeit still significant, fraction of the total cancer deaths.

To return to BCAction, this network attempts to accomplish the important job of revealing the contradictory actions of various companies. A recent example of this work involves Bee Sweet Citrus and Wonderful Citrus, the United States’ largest citrus grower (the grower responsible for Halos®). This company was found to be irrigating their crops with wastewater from oil corporations. According to the LA Times, it has been observed that this wastewater can contain benzene, a known carcinogen linked to breast cancer development. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, no level of benzene is considered safe in drinking water, so it stands to reason that using water that is potentially laced with this carcinogenic substance for the purpose of irrigating crops is ultimately counterproductive in regards to the anti-cancer agenda.

The actions of Bee Sweet Citrus and Wonderful Citrus have been labeled examples of “pinkwashing” because, in addition to irrigating their crops with potentially carcinogenic wastewater, the products of this irrigation are being sold with the help of the pink ribbon. In this way, a company that is actively contributing to the problem of breast cancer is simultaneously profiting from the use of the pink ribbon with the implication that, by purchasing the aforementioned product, consumers can help fight the disease.

Unfortunately, this form of hypocrisy is all too common in today’s markets. Because there exist such troublesome examples of capitalistic greed, it is, therefore, the responsibility of the consumer to critically analyze corporate motivations so that we may be better equipped to make decisions that are not only well-informed but also ethical in nature.

To expand on this hypocrisy, there is something fundamentally wrong with an “anti-breast cancer” foundation like Susan G. Komen partnering with a company like KFC. KFC’s “Buckets for the Cure” campaign stated that for every bucket of chicken purchased, KFC would donate 50 cents to the Susan G. Komen foundation. Unfortunately, this partnership will likely do much more for KFC’s bottom line than it will for the thousands of women that will be diagnosed with breast cancer. By claiming to support women’s health while simultaneously producing, promoting, and selling a product that is bad for the health of women, KFC and Susan G. Komen are effectively contributing to the already hypocritical nature of breast cancer awareness programs.

Another troubling instance of this hypocrisy involves Estée Lauder, which, despite having launched the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, has still yet to sign the Compact for Safe Cosmetics. The company is thus touting an anti-breast cancer agenda while simultaneously manufacturing and selling products that may contribute to the risk of developing breast cancer. Cosmetics are, unfortunately, often fraught with various chemicals that have been linked to various forms of cancer. The United States’ careless policies regarding the use of these substances in products allow companies to continue harming individuals while simultaneously profiting from them. Fortunately, there are organizations like the Environmental Working Group (EWG). The EWG has successfully cataloged more than 62,000 cosmetics and provides reports on any ingredients of concern. These reports include measures of risk for cancer, developmental/reproductive toxicity, allergies/immunotoxicity, as well as a measure of overall hazard.

Breast cancer, in addition to all forms of cancer, is deserving of our attention and should not be ignored. However, we would do well to remember that everything is rarely as it seems, as is the case for the vast majority of products boasting the infamous pink ribbon.

In the words of the Breast Cancer Action network, "think before you pink."

To learn more and to access resources, visit BCAction's website: http://www.bcaction.org/