Portland State sociology professor Amy Lubitow co-wrote an article this summer that brought the concept of “pinkwashing” to the
nation’s attention.
The business practice of using the color pink and pink ribbons to indicate solidarity with breast-cancer survivors and alignment with the search for a cure regardless of a company’s true status as a supporter or trafficker of cancer-promoting chemicals, has been a reality since the ‘90s.
But the article “Pastel Injustice”—co-written by Lubitow and Mia Davis, organizing director for the National Campaign for Safe Cosmetics—recently caught the attention of a Forbes blogger and prompted a personal response from cosmetic giant Avon.
“Pinkwashing” follow the term “greenwashing,” a name for the display of green labels and eco-friendly symbols simultaneous with the production of goods that damage the environment.
Denouncers of the practice say it’s false advertisement.
In “Pastel Injustice,” Lubitow and Davis claim that corporations use pinkwashing to control the public experience of breast cancer while increasing profits and potentially contributing to rising rates of the disease.
Davis and Lubitow met when Lubitow was doing her Ph.D. research at Northeastern University in Boston. Both women study the impact of chemicals on the environment.
These intersecting focuses led the scientists to collaborate on an article highlighting the corporate misuse of the Komen Foundation pink ribbon and the unknown environmental factors that may cause the disease.
Nearly 40,000 women die annually from breast cancer today, up 40 percent from the death rates of 1978. Lubitow and Davis note that only about one in 10 women with breast cancer inherit the disease, contrary to a widely held assumption that breast cancer is largely genetic.
Davis sees this revelation in a positive light.
“If one in 10 cases that are diagnosed are linked to family history, that means that it’s possible that nine in 10 cases may trace to environmental factors,” she said. “This is actually good news—nine out of 10 cases of breast cancer may be preventable based on products linked to the marketplace. It’s actually in our control.”
Avon, the self-titled “company for women,” is the largest corporate supporter of breast cancer research. Lubitow and Davis write that more than 250 of Avon’s products listed in a database assessing the health risks of cosmetic products are in the “highest concern” category, due to the presence of hormone disruptors, neurotoxins and possible carcinogens, according to the Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition.
Additionally, less than 2 percent of the $265 million raised by Avon from 2005–08 in support of breast cancer truly went toward environmental research related to breast cancer prevention.
“Avon was an easy example for us to use,” said Lubitow. “We would never say it’s the only company that does this sort of thing, but it’s one of those names that’s synonymous with breast cancer, but at the same time is producing harmful products. There’s a contradiction there.”
On July 11, Forbes.com blogger Meghan Casserly published an excerpt from “Pastel Injustice” in her Girl
Friday column.
Tod Arbogast, vice president of sustainability and corporate responsibility for Avon, wrote a letter to Forbes nine days later refuting some of the claims made by Lubitow and Davis.
“Avon scientists continually evaluate ingredient safety in partnership with regulatory, scientific and university bodies,” said Arbogast. “If any ingredient is found to be unsafe, it is immediately removed from our products.”
Much of the blame for these chemicals is the current regulatory system in place, said Davis.
“Cosmetics is one of the most unregulated products on the market,” said Davis. “It is perfectly legal for companies to use toxic chemicals in their products—pink water bottles, for example, contain toxic chemicals linked to cancer.”
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, even asbestos isn’t banned.
In their response to Avon, Lubitow and Davis don’t disparage the company for receiving massive donations, but the authors take exception to the paradigm of breast cancer shaped by corporations.
The notion of a race for the “cure” is something that Lubitow and Davis believe isn’t addressing the problem.
“More research dollars must go to true prevention so that we may begin to answer important questions, including why the United States continues to have one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the industrialized world,” Davis and Lubitow write.
“While Avon’s support and financial contributions have increased the quantity of breast cancer research and may have contributed to important medical breakthroughs, a funding paradigm that is centered solely on treatment and care can never hope to reduce the prevalence of cancer,” the authors said.
Lubitow explained to the Vanguard that she hoped to make clear to Avon that prevention needs to be prioritized.
“Very few are asking questions about where the disease comes from and what might be causing it,” Lubitow said. “In our interaction with Avon, we suggest that early intervention isn’t a cure. It helps reduce the mortality rate, but it really isn’t doing anything to reduce the rates of cancer.”
Both Davis and Lubitow praised the advocacy bred by the pinkwashing phenomenon—it has encouraged lawmakers and companies to employ environmentally friendly corporate and regulatory policies.
Lubitow will focus on pinkwashing in her classes this fall.
For more information go to SaferChemicals.org, or .