Pinktober, when hundreds of products turn pink for breast cancer, is a curious month – more carnival than commemoration; more rose-coloured glasses than true blue conscious raising.
Concerns have been raised about “pinkwashing” and the commodification of breast cancer in the United States, particularly how the meanings ascribed to pink – girlhood, girl-power and happiness – have effectively turned breast cancer into a consumer product. But in Australia, few questions are asked about this unusual cultural practice.
Like most years, this past October was full of efforts across the country – RMIT pinked-up for the global illumination project, hundreds of pink breakfasts were held around the country, and domestic cleaning giants, Ansell and Vileda, created a special range of pink cleaning products.
Pinktober’s carnival-like atmosphere, cheerful get-togethers and domestic embellishments could make you forget that breast cancer is a killer disease.
In the words of US sociologist Barbara Ehrenreich, breast cancer has been “bright-sided” – turned into something positive – where victims (a word discouraged in breast cancer parlance) advocate cheerfulness, affirmation or rites of passage. While the culture covers a wide variety of upbeat products and projects, pink is the unifying linchpin.
First a history lesson – pink has not always been coded female. Despite its well-documented connection with western femininity, pink has only been a feminine colour since the 1940s following the ingression of modernist French influences. Before this, blue had generally been associated with girls because of its correlation with the Virgin Mary; pink was connected with boys because it was a lighter shade of “masculine red”.
Clearly, the meanings attached to colours change. Yellow, for example, means cowardice, as in Kenny Rogers’ Coward of the County, or caution, as in traffic lights, or trippy as in Donovan’s Mellow Yellow. Blue has been both a hot and cold colour, a signifier of divinity and the working class.
Pink, like other colours, means something. According to Barbara Nemitz, artist and expert on pink, “What is unique about pink is that it is assertive in whatever context it appears.” Nancy Brinker, founder of the Komen Foundation, writes in a Huffington Post blog, “People tend to think of pink as a soft and delicate color, but not our pink … we know that pink is strong, pink is fierce, pink is brave, and pink is mighty. Just talk to any one of the nation’s 2.5 million breast cancer survivors and you’ll know the power and courage of pink.”
So, for Brinker, regular pink is sweet and nice, like Barbies and princesses, but “breast cancer pink” is strong and feisty. Recontextualising pink apparently shifts its meaning from girlie to girl power – from passive to active. The only problem is that in this context, girl power resembles buying power and active is really a passive form of protest.
“Show your support for breast cancer research by going shopping!” suggests one organisation. “Fight like a girl” urges a popular slogan accompanied by a pair of pink boxing gloves. For convenience, this slogan is available on tee shirts, lip balm, bags, key chains and bracelets – products completely disconnected from the actual experience of women with breast cancer. Indeed, these products suggest youth culture and girls – a demographic unlikely to develop breast cancer.
It’s no wonder that Breast Cancer Action – the group that popularised the phrase “Think before you Pink” is having a pink fit!
If breast cancer pink truly represents power, how come it resembles a carnival with youthful celebrities in the pink of health? How come it adorns tee shirts with sexist slogans such as “save second base”? How come it’s on buckets of KFC when obesity is a known risk factor for breast cancer? How come it implies awareness more than cause or cure?
Colour theorist, Karl Schawalka, has shown that pink is the colour of camouflage. He reveals, for example, that 18th century French aristocratic society appeared pink and feminine on the outside, but masked a society in which children were raised away from their mothers. Similarly, the Gruen Transfer’s Todd Sampson notes, “In some cases, it can be seen that everything is okay with breast cancer because so many pink things are taking care of it.”
Breast cancer pink is clearly less about power than pink dollars and rose-coloured glasses. More problematically, it has become the signifier of a new feminism more concerned with awareness than protest. Says Ehrenreich, “Welcome to the Women’s Movement 2.0: Instead of the proud female symbol … we have a droopy ribbon. Instead of embracing the full spectrum of human colors … we stick to princess pink. While we used to march in protest … now we race or walk ‘for the cure.’ And while we once sought full ‘consciousness’ … now we’re content to achieve ‘awareness’.”
It’s surely time to “rethink pink”. While it adorns carnivals, celebrities and gendered consumer products, breast cancer pink will continue to be a symbol of princesses, happiness and camouflage – not power, action and advocacy.
Comments on this article are now closed.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
The worst aspectof this commodification of breast cancer is that it detracts from proper consideration of the full spectrum of cancer, especially cancers that don't discriminate on gender grounds.
It's a great testimony to the fact that our society, far from being an oppressive patriarchy, places huge and disproportionate emphasis on the welfare of women. Breasts are the most obvious defining secondary sex characteristic and are also the functional tissue that provides sustenance for children. One of the great sources of female power in our society is the nurturing role, which gives women effective control of the next generation. Anything which threatens that capacity to nurture is bound to be seen as a threat to a defining part of the female identity, it seems to me.
Of course smart marketers (many if not most of whom are now women) would seek to ride on the back of such a powerful social meme.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
For once, Craig Minns, I agree with you.
One of the great advantages of our publicly funded health system in Australia is that it doesn't rely on partisan donations by private philanthropists, who put their money where their own interests lie.
Breast cancer is certainly a relatively high prevalence cancer that kills young women (although more commonly older women). Prostate cancer is more prevalent but slower-growing, and most prevalent at older age. But what about testicular cancer, bone cancer. The there is huge expenditure in extending the life of people with incurable cancers - perhaps more justifiable at younger ages.
It would be great to have a wide debate about spending priorities, based on all these factors. We need leagues tables with incidence, prevalence, age groups, curability, longevity etc as a background for public spending.
What people then do with money they raise privately, however, is their own business - isn't it?
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Qualification - Craig, I agree with your first paragraph.
The rest, no.
Chris Saunders
retired
Although your points are very serious and important, I didn't think this was what the article was about. I thought Donna Wyatt was on about the colour pink and what it represents/symbolises.
Pink is nice and little harmless girl conservative, the stuff of dreams and feeling good and feminine sweetness. Nothing much here to frighten the patriarchs. No threat of political revolution even if you are breaking with tradition by seeking to stop the deaths. A cure for cancer: breast or otherwise, becomes then a matter of concentrating financial and medical resources into a specific area. Quite a remarkable effort in itself. Pink slips nicely under the patriarchal radar. And the pink campaign? Well, it demonstrates how if we (women and lower status men) are nice then all will come.
Donna Wyatt
Doctoral student in Gender Studies at Victoria University
Yes, I think this nicely encapsulates the article. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the way that oppressive practices that at one time necessitated a feminist response, have been discursively and symbolically reframed as part of a new feminist paradigm that shifts debates away from political activism. I think pink has become something of a symbol of this shift. Pink is a camouflaging colour - as you suggest, it slips nicely under the patriarchal radar - and a colour that seems to foreground women - but I wonder if pink and pink culture really improve the lives of women with breast cancer or women more broadly.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
Could it be that the "oppressive practises" were and remain largely a convenient political expedient that has outlived both its usefulness and its power to limit proper rational discussion?
Women are now the dominant gender in many professions, the single mother household is now one of the major structures and single mothers are paid welfare equivalent to having a full-time median-income job, domestic violence has been redefined to such an extent that it is now a useful tool for women seeking favourable divorce conditions, etc, etc, etc.
In your view, what is the compelling reason for genderist activism?
Craig Minns
Self-employed
What do you disagree with specifically, Sue? And why?
Craig Minns
Self-employed
Chris, I don't know of any patriarchs that might be "frightened". Would you like to elucidate? You seem to be implying that there are people in positions of power within our society who actively want women to die from breast cancer, which is frankly risible.
On the subject of cancer research, according to the chief medical officer of the Cancer Council, the emphasis on breast cancer is a largely wasted effort tat is robbing funds from more general research that could yield broadly-useful results to inform the treatment of many types of cancer. It's not just about concentrating effort, but about making best use of limited funds. In her view, it would be preferable for funds to be donated for cancer research generally, rather than specifically for breast cancer.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Craig - first, my point of agreement: public funds should be transparently aimed at areas where the data shows a combination of prevalence, disability and treatment benefit in our community.
Where I disagree is your framing of the role of women in our society, and, specifically:
- the alleged societal benefits of the "nurturing" role
- your framing of breast cancer in relation to the cultural view of the breast.
To take the second one first: the reason that breasts are prone to cancerous…
Read moreCraig Minns
Self-employed
Sue, I'm disappointed in you. You haven't addressed my post at all, instead you have gone off at a tangent.
Firstly, I was suggesting (not "framing", that implies some agenda, which I don't have) the disproportionate funding of breast cancer research and treatment is a cultural artefact. I don't see how you managed to construe my meaning as being about the physiology, but that's not at all what I meant, or indeed, what I believe I said, upon re-reading. Would you care to have a go at my meaning, which is what you said you disagree with, rather than your own, which has little to do with what I said?
Second, I dispute your suggestion that pay reflects the value we place on roles, except in the most narrow sense. Think of it this way: given the choice between saving a mother and a CEO from drowning, which do you think most people would choose?
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
I haven't addressed your post at all? Sorry, we disagree again.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
I thought you'd squib it.
Great at asserting affirmations, not so good at reasoned discussion.
It's a shame, because you are obviously not unintelligent.
Chris Saunders
retired
I find the symbolism of colour very striking and clear. For instance in the Cinderella story as retold by Disney (post Walt). Disney’s Cinderella dressed in drab green and browns, does not work raking the cinders out of the fireplace, but she is still portrayed as working hard at chores and subjected to the animosity and whim of a step mother (dressed in blue) and step-sisters (yellow and darker pink) because they have asserted power over her. When her attempts to attend the ball fail she goes…
Read moreSue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
No, Craig - I responded to your post - directly.
You got it back to front - I was providing the physiological explanation as a counter to your cultural assertion.
"It's a shame, because you are obviously not unintelligent."
With your recent comments, I'm not sure I could say the same about you.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
"Fairy god mother is in purple" ?
My favourite colour!
Fascinating post, Chris.
Reema Rattan
Editor at The Conversation
Let's keep it civil, folks.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
The trouble is Sue, that the physiological issue is irrelevant to the cultural one. I don't disagree with your points, but they have nothing whatever to do with the subject of disproportionate funding and marketability. There are any number of other cancers that affect young people, leukaemia being a notable example, that don't attract the funding frenzy that BC does. How do you explain why the leukaemia foundation doesn't get the same sort of support that breast cancer does?
Reema, thank you for the gentle tap on the shoulder.
Donna Wyatt
Doctoral student in Gender Studies at Victoria University
Thanks for such a great post Chris, especially your commentary on symbolism and beliefs. You say that when beliefs do not work anymore we tend to smash our symbols whereupon we find other beliefs. I wonder if the opposite is true as well: if our symbols don't work anymore do we then smash our beliefs? I'm thinking here about the colour pink (surprise surprise). If pink no longer holds salience as a symbol, do we tend to re-conceptualise the beliefs that keep the symbols alive?
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
No, Craig - I was saying that the physiological propensity of the breast - even in relatively young women - to develop cancer is the reason why it attracts money for research - not just your alleged cultural reason.
As I've said, I agree that various health causes are pushed by marketing. I think people have the right to put their own money where they will, but public money should be apportioned in a much more rational way.
I don't agree, though, that marketing for breast cancer is out of proportion…
Read moreCraig Minns
Self-employed
There may be a myriad of groups Sue, but the BC cause gets the money.
I'm not creating a false dichotomy Sue, it's a real one that deserves to be properly understood. It's interesting that you're so keen on shooting the messenger. Perhaps a case of your feminism overcoming your professionalism?
I'm not saying my own suggestion is necessarily correct, but the breast is indeed a powerful symbol in our culture.
On the subject of the essay, I've always thought that pink was meant to be somewhat evocative of the feminine bits and pieces, but that's probably patriarchal of me or something.
Chris Saunders
retired
If I follow your article correctly, pink has been recontextualised from representing the feminine to represent the walking, cheerful, wounded woman; those who through no fault of their own have a woman’s breast and therefore are condemned to die. They are virtuous champions, unlike those others whom we are encouraged to despise and condemn; the smokers, the drinkers and the obese; in many cases the poor, the sick and the angry. They also encompass the feminine.
Read moreCompetitors, critics, health activist…
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
"Perhaps a case of your feminism overcoming your professionalism?"
Very amusing, Craig.
Oh, and BTW, debating on internet sights is not my profession, though health care is.
I have no idea where your area of expertise lies, Craig, but it clearly isn;t within health care. If you want to be informed about research expenditure, I suggest you look at some real data, such as the Cancer Council reports. Here's a link to the 2010 report:
http://issuu.com/cancercouncil/docs/research_activity_report_2010?mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Flight%2Flayout.xml&showFlipBtn=true
You will see feature articles on leukaemia, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer and more, and the appendices contain all the research grants. Take a look, and you might be able to comment in a more informed way.
Craig Minns
Self-employed
An interesting link, Sue, but a somewhat disingenuous response.
Cancer Australia, which is the national body, operating under the aegis of Government has a rather interesting site
http://canceraustralia.gov.au/research-data/research
You'll note the prominence of breast cancer.
However, that's less interesting than your argument. You seem to be saying that the huge public focus on breast cancer is not being matched with a concomitant research funding effort. What do you think is happening to all the money raised?
Craig Minns
Self-employed
Here'sa piece from the US showing funding by cancer type. I couldn't find a similar list for Australia, since the relevant authorities don't collate one, as best I can tell. I'd be happy to be corrected.
http://www.cancer.org/research/researchprogramsfunding/currentlyfundedprojects/current-grants-by-cancer-type
It can be seen that BC receives nearly double the specific funding of the next best-funded disease, colo-rectal cancer and nearly 3 times that allocated to either leukaemia or lung cancer…
Read moreChris Booker
Research scientist
One of the big problems of the whole 'pinkwashing' and breast cancer story is the attention and funding it detracts from other kinds of cancers - the opportunity cost, in effect.
There's certainly nothing wrong with raising awareness of, and money for, a particular cancer, but it seems to me that the fact that breasts are such a feminine attribute is a double-edged sword. Sure, on the one hand it gives something women (and many men) can rally around as somewhat of a cause for the improvement of…
Read moreLisa Hodgson
Director
Hmm, for a minute there I thought we were going to get to the meaty part of the argument on pink washing. Disappointed to be conversing about colour instead. But no matter the colour all cancer 'awareness' campaigns, charities, runs FOR (insert cancer type here), searches for cure completely miss the point (perhaps deliberately). That is, if we actually addressed the causes, if we actually worked towards preventing cancer (as we are with tobacco) there would be no need for all the colours of the…
Read moreKitty Te Riele
CRN Principal Research Fellow at Victoria University
Hmm, i wonder whether your comment is more in agreement with the article than you suggest.
It seems to me you want "power, action, and advocacy" ( last sentence of the article).
The article suggests that pinkification is one of the reasons that is not happening - everyone is too busy running around organising pink breakfasts etc to have time left for serious lobbying.
Sharon Hutchings
logged in via Facebook
Agree totally Lisa.
It continues to also disappoint me that many women and men just continue to blindly consume products with neither concern about nor interest in the potentially harmful ingredients.
Another disturbing aspect is the popularity of cancer fundraising BBQs given the known links between red meat consumption, especially processed red meat, and cancers -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070407174018.htm
http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/expert_report/recommendations/recommendation_animal_foods.php
https://www.mja.com.au/open/2012/1/2/plant-based-diet-good-us-and-planet
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Lisa - there certainly is a lot of preventative action aimed at the major modifiable risk factors for breast cancer, which are cigarette smoking, excess alcohol consumption and obesity.
(see http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/27/32/5312.short
"Relationship Between Potentially Modifiable Lifestyle Factors and Risk of Second Primary Contralateral Breast Cancer Among Women Diagnosed With Estrogen Receptor–Positive Invasive Breast Cancer"
Just like treatment priorities should be evidence-based, preventative strategies should also be evidence-based.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Sharon - it's interesting to look at the actual paper that your first news story refers to - the full paper is at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2360120/
"Meat consumption and risk of breast cancer in the UK Women's Cohort Study"
It's true that they found a small influence of total and processed meat consumption on breast cancer rates in post-menopausal women (table 4), but the Hazard Ratios were all less than 2. In the second model, where they controlled for other factors (age…
Read moreLisa Hodgson
Director
Hi Kitty,
I wasn't disagreeing, just stating that there's more meat in the *whole cancer/charity argument than what was presented.
There's no point in having power, action or advocacy if it's directed at the continuation of research for a cure and creating awareness (of whatever colour cancer you like). It's not just pink that's the problem.
Lisa Hodgson
Director
Hi Sue,
do you think there should be a Public Health Campaign on say, for example the dangers of BPA and it's relationship to cancer?
Or would it be more health cost effective to ban such carcinogenic substances from our food and drink containers?
Lisa Hodgson
Director
Sue, obviously lifestyle choices are important, but I don't imagine that you are limiting potential cancer causes to tobacco, alcohol and obesity. My point about pink (cancer) washing is that it focusses on awareness and research for cures and NOT preventative strategies such as removing (I repeat) KNOWN carcinogens from our food and environment.
http://www.nature.com/nrendo/journal/v6/n7/abs/nrendo.2010.87.html
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Hi, Lisa
On BPA specifically, I would defer to the expert panel convened by the US NIH and EPA, and their evaluation of the evidence. They conclude "Due to the paucity of the current literature, it is premature to conclude that BPA is carcinogenic on its own."
As far as banning substances goes, public policy needs to balance potential harms, costs and side-stream effects.
The US FDA considered a ban in March 2012 and decided against it, stating that ""the scientific evidence at this time…
Read moreSue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Lisa - you misunderstood.
Smoking, obesity and excess alcohol are not just "lifestyle choices" - they are the three big risk factors for breast cancer. These are all modifiable, and far outweigh even the genetic predisposition, which is unmodifiable.
Which "food and environment" carcinogens are you saying have anywhere near the influence of these three factors?
Lisa Hodgson
Director
Hi Sue,
Your first quote “Due to the paucity of the current literature, it is premature to conclude that BPA is carcinogenic on its own." is from the opening sentence of the NIH summary, here’s the full conclusions:
Read more“Based on existing evidence, we are confident of the following:
1. Natural estradiol-17β is a carcinogen as classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer [37;107;108].
2. BPA acts as an endocrine disruptor with some estrogenic properties among other hormonal activities…
Lisa Hodgson
Director
"they are THE three big risk factors for breast cancer" (my emphasis)
No they're not.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-risk-factors
http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/factors/
Are you deliberately being misleading?
Each of these factors ARE lifestyle choices, usually *informed choices, so we know how to avoid those risks. The way to avoid other risks such as KNOWN endocrine disrupters in our food and the environment is to remove them.
"Which "food and environment" carcinogens are you saying have anywhere near the influence of these three factors?"
This is a straw man Sue, it’s not about *strength of influence. It’s about removing influences when they become obvious. BPA is only one example.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Lisa - are you being disingenuous?
I cited my reference, which gives the following findings:
""Results Obesity, consumption of ≥ 7 alcoholic beverages per week, and current smoking were all positively related to risk of contralateral breast cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.1; OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.2; and OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.0, respectively). Compared with women who consumed fewer than seven alcoholic beverages per week and were never or former smokers, women who consumed ≥ 7 drinks per week and were current smokers had a 7.2-fold (95% CI, 1.9 to 26.5) elevated risk of contralateral breast cancer."
The paper is about MODIFIABLE risk factors (knowing that one cannot modify heredity or age).
Why would I want to be "deliberately misleading"? Your tone is disturbing and quite out of place.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
""Why is it that, as a clinician, these conclusions don’t seem to concern you?"
Because I understand the difference between theoretical effects and clinical outcomes.
I'm interested that you would take a different approach to the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority - on what basis do you do so? Have you ever been responsible for either health care or public policy?
Once you banned BPA, what plastics would you allow for food and beverages?
Lisa Hodgson
Director
Hi Sue,
please accept my apologies. Somehow I missed the link you gave. But I still disagree with your assessment. The study you cited is "Relationship Between Potentially Modifiable Lifestyle Factors and Risk of Second Primary Contralateral Breast Cancer Among Women Diagnosed With Estrogen Receptor–Positive Invasive Breast Cancer".
So the risk factors of smoking, alcohol and obesity in this case refer to secondary breast cancer among women with "Estrogen Receptor–Positive Invasive Breast Cancer". Again your global statement "they are THE three big risk factors for breast cancer" (my emphasis), does not reflect the more nuanced research you link to.
Mark Amey
logged in via Facebook
My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer around seven years ago. She is alive today because of a number of interventions including, surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and, more recently, a drug called Herceptin.
We are quite cynical about all of this fund raising for breast cancer because it's most likely that those big multinational drug companies, which most people seem to disparage, with names like 'Big Pharma' will come up with either 'the cure' or, at least some very effective treatments.
The other big 'Pink' fund raising arm is for 'breast cancer nurses'. We have both found the breast cancer nurses, that we've been involved with, to be ineffective, and to contribute little to my wife's care.
Unfortunately, if one tries to explain this to folk who are rattling the can for Pink Donations, one is treated like some sort of pariah!
Craig Minns
Self-employed
The McGrath Foundation's nurse program has been less than enthusiastically received all round, as far as I can tell. Such programs are great at being visible symbols of "something being done", but not so great at being genuinely useful.
What sort of things do you and your wife think might be useful to assist you in dealing with your genuine needs?
Mark Amey
logged in via Facebook
Sorry to take so long to reply.
The breast nurse did little more than make an appointment with an oncologist, and gave us the name of a physiotherapist who specialised in lymphoedema. This could have been done by the secretary. I don't know exactly what I would expect a 'breast nurse' to do, hence my antagonism to raising money for more breast nurses.
By the way, both my wife and I are nurses, so should, in theory, support the cause for more breast nurses. I think that money would be better spent on early detection. Perhaps breast nurses could do ultrasound courses, and speed up the diagnosis??
Elizabeth Handsley
Professor of Law at Flinders University
I really liked this piece, so much so that I posted it on facebook. Then yesterday I found out a woman close to me has been disagnosed with breast cancer. She is having surgery next week.
One thing she has been pleased about is how easily her husband's workplace came to the party, arranging for him to be able to work from home so he can care for her when she gets out of hospital.
I wonder how different the story might have been if it hadn't been for all that pink awareness-raising. So without detracting from the very cogent points raised in the article, I want to suggest that awareness-raising has a place, and can be a great help to people affected by the disease.
Babette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
I am astounded that in a supposedly academic "Conversation", the writers are focused on trivia the significance of the colour pink in regard to breast cancer while ignoring the impact of reproductive health issues in regard to the disease. The medical profession has known for centuries since the high incidence of breast cancer in nuns was observed that being childless is a risk factor. They also know that delayed first full term pregnancy (after age 30) is a risk factor while early childbirth is…
Read moreDianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Babette
Women are far more than baby incubators. Your claims linking breast cancer to childlessness and/or abortion have been refuted in many peer reviewed medical journals. For example, of women who have had spontaneous abortions AKA miscarriages there is no increase in breast cancer than for women able to complete their pregnancies.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage
Anecdotally, of the women I know personally to have had breast cancer, all have been mothers.
Issuing such scare tactics is a deplorable method of misinformation used by the anti-choice lobby as a weapon to destroy a woman's right to decide for herself whether she wants or even can be a parent.
Smoking is a higher risk of developing cancer than induced or spontaneous abortions.
Gregory James Byrne
Retired
You seem an honest person to me Dianna. Why don't you approach Professor Joel Brind and Dr Angela Lanfranchi and get their side of the story. We can go back and forth 20 times without reaching finality but I think if you quietly make your own methodical investigations looking at both sides you will find the truth. I don't think anyone finds the truth in a stoush on a website like this. People have to seek the truth methodically and the time will come when they are convinced one way or the other. Greg
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Ms Francis - reproductive history does have some effect on breast cancer rates, and interacts with hormones like oestrogen in that women with long menstrual histories (early menarche + late menopause, especially if uninterrupted by pregnancy) has some effect - although a small one.
It's important to realise that, in the majority of cases, there are no identifiable risk factors.
Since miscarriage occurs in about 20% of pregnancies, it seems hard to imagine that induced/surgical miscarriage could…
Read moreSue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Interesting - never heard of these people but their website and published information carries an anti-abortion spin.
Their assertion that induced/surgical abortion carries a greater risk than spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage) is simply not correct (see my other reference below). The references they cite to back up this claim do not show what the authors claim.
They do use pink ribbons prominently on their site, though - as dot points.
Greg Byrne
logged in via Facebook
Sue we have had about 15 years of lies, cover up, half-truths, distortions and so on from the cancer establishment. There has been no honest debate. Ask yourself this: If the abortion breast cancer link is phony why hasn't the cancer establishment blown us out of the water once and for all. Why are we still here?
If you go to Professor Joel Brind and Dr Angela Lanfranchi and tell them you think that their stuff is a load of baloney I'm sure that they will give you a very convincing response. The cancer establishment is in damage control mode because it doesn't want to antagonise its political masters who pay the bills.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Sue
First off I apologise to all contributors for not debating strictly on topic of the use of the colour pink. That said I enjoyed, very much, Chris Saunders discourse on the importance of symbols.
However, given claims have been made regarding abortion and breast cancer by people who have a known anti-abortion agenda, I am compelled to comment.
I have been presenting my opinion from a general knowledge of biology, not as specialised as yours, Sue, being a medical professional.
My question…
Read moreBabette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Dianna,
The risk factor for induced abortion/breast cancer does not arise from the D & C process or whatever process is used to remove the fetus from the womb in either miscarriage or induced abortion. The rist factor arises from the level of hormones - in most first trimester miscarriages the hormones do not rise sufficiently to maintain the pregnancy, that is why the woman miscarries. In an induced abortion of a normal pregnancy, the hormones have risen to a far higher level than in the non-pregnant woman, and this what causes the risk because the hormones result in breast cell multiplication but the cells are not allowed to reach their mature safe state as they do at post-32 weeks gestation.
And it is ridiculous to write off the scientific views of those who are pro-life - we are far more likely to tell you the truth about what science already shows than those who are making money out of abortion. We spend our own money to help pregnant women and their babies.
Babette Francis
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Ms Francis - I've explained above how you have misunderstood the physiology of miscarriage - the hormones fall because the foetus fails to develop - not the other way around.
The level of the pregnancy hormones at either spontaneous or induced abortion depends on the length of gestation.
"And it is ridiculous to write off the scientific views of those who are pro-life " - your scientific views are not being written off because of your other beliefs - they are being written off because they are wrong.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
"Why are we still here?"
Good question, Mr Byrne. I assume you are here to argue against abortion.
I had never heard of you, Ms Francis, Joel Brind or Angela Lanfranchi, or even your views about miscarriage and breast cancer until I read this discussion thread. Then I went and looked up the evidence, and thought through the physiology, and found that you are mistaken.
By all means argue your view about induced abortion, but, if you try to make it a scientific one, it would be best to understand…
Read moreBabette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Dr. Sue,
Read moreIn my response to Dianna I have quoted the studies by which the Swedish researchers could predict which pregnancies would miscarry by measuring estradiol, so I won't repeat that again. Whether the fetus dies first or the hormone rise is insufficient to maintain the pregnancy is a bit like which came first, the chicken or the egg. The issue is that because of fetal death/hormone insufficiency the breast cells do not develop in a pregnancy destined to miscarry, wheras they do develop…
Greg Byrne
logged in via Facebook
Well Sue either I'm going paranoid or you are out to get me. This link will give you 68 studies of which 51 support the link. Prof Brind has drawn on them for his articles on the Abortion Breast Cancer Link so he is not some way out nutter with a bee in his bonnet. Rather he has drawn on the resources of the profession to make his case.
http://bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm
I am sure that you will find this information informative. You are welcome to contact us for further information if necessary. The cancer establishment has been trying to blow us out of the water for 15 years but we are here to stay. Now why can't they do it?
Greg Byrne
logged in via Facebook
By the way here is another great study on the ABC link. It cites numerous references at the end. The link is a bit slow so give it 5 mins.
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/carroll.pdf
I'm sure that if you check out the references that we have given you that you will be able to make up your own minds about who is right. We don't want any apologies or admissions of being wrong. We are only interested in stating the facts and helping women. Greg
Jason Tame
Professional Human
TIRED AND HAD IT UP TO MY T*TS quite frankly with the commercialism of what is a serious but SERIOUSLY over supported disease.
There is a limit generally that can be raised within a community by donations from individuals or corporations - and Breast Cancer and the various foundations have monopolised the market with their PINKWASHING of everything from toilet paper to water. IT DISGUSTS ME - and I currently have an Aunt just diagnosed so I am not far removed from the disease in relative terms.
Everyone loves a set of boobs - that is a fact - and supporting women with this diagnosis just makes such EASY sense when you are a business looking to "look caring", or asked to support yet another "breast cancer luncheon".
I for one direct my donations and business support to OTHER LESSER KNOWN AND LESS MARKETABLE CAUSES SUCH AS colon cancer or pancreatic cancer. BROWNWASHING your product or having a "breakfast for colon cancer" doesn't have quite the same ring to it does it?
Babette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Dianna,
Read moreI am not trying to scare women, only to inform them. Of course a woman has the right to decide whether to be a mother, but she should make her decision in the light of all the facts and not only those provided by the profit-making industry.
And I agree that most miscarriages do not increase breast cancer risk because they occur in the first trimester of pregnancy and the pregnancy hormones have not risen high enough either to maintain the pregnancy or to increase breast cancer risk…
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Babette
You can help women by encouraging healthy lifestyles including exercise, moderate drinking and eating fresh unprocessed food and abstaining completely from smoking - the tobacco industry being exceedingly more profitable than any family planning clinics.
Your 'facts' distort the natural consequences of both induced and spontaneous abortion. In my case after two of my miscarriages I required a D&C
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Dilatation_and_curettage…
Read moreBabette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Dianna,
Read moreI did not mention not smoking, moderate alcohol or eating fresh food, fruit and vegetables because these are what the Cancer Councils stress and I thoroughly agree with them, but there is no point in me trying to re-invent the wheel. What I am trying to inform women about are some of the facts that the Cancer Councils know but won't tell, i.e. that so far as preventing breast cancer, a baby is a woman's best ally. Early full-term pregnancy is protective, as is a large family and long duration…
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Babette
Why would the Cancer Council keep secret a medical procedure that is used for a variety of medical conditions apart from induced abortion, as increasing the incidence of breast cancer? There is no logic to this claim.
Also the incidence of abortion include both induced and spontaneous abortions as well as other conditions such as polyps and fibroids. There is no direct correlation in contemporary medicine to link D&C or medically initiated abortion to increased levels of cancer…
Read moreMichael Bailes
logged in via Facebook
I too would like to see more emphasis in research on risk factors, for both big cancers- prostrate and breast; (both seem to have a sex hormone involvement) Much research seems to be going to providing a"magic bullet" that will make someone rich.
I wonder about the toxins in our environment (400+ foreign chemicals in breast milk in one European study)
Many substances, metals and toxins can mimic the biological functions of estrogens; bisphenol A, an endocrine-disrupting chemical, the most recent in the media
.Is hormone replacement therapy a good idea? or an iatrogenic risk factor?
Weight and alcohol have not been shown/proven to be a risk factor in my reading of recent research. Perhaps the attention these get is because they can be changed whereas we don't seem to be able to reduce the chemical soup we live in.
Dietary polyphenols ( and lately their analogues) seem to be a good idea but is anyone promoting them?
Michael Bailes
logged in via Facebook
Sorry prostate
Babette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Dianna,
Read moreYou ask me why the Cancer Councils conceal the information I have provided about the reproductive risk factors affecting the incidence of breast cancer. Why not ask them? Send them copies of my emails and request a response. You will find the only one they dispute is the abortion-breast cancer link, and they will have difficulty with that one after Louise Brinton, researcher with the US National Cancer Institute signed the Dolle study.
Ask the Cancer Councils why they don't give women…
Babette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Sue,
Read moreAt last someone is conceding that childlessness and parity have an effect on breast cancer risk. The nuns issue is irrelevant - there are many women who do not find a husband and remain childless. What is relevant is when a young girl is pregnant and is being being persuaded or coerced into having an abortion that she be told the facts -that her pregnancy if carried to term lowers the risk of a fatal, mutilating disease.
I am astonished that apparently intelligent academic women do not understand…
Chris Saunders
retired
Just a word on the so called trivia of discussing cancer pink. If symbols were so irrelevant and trivial one would have to ask oneself why firstly they resonate so strongly with people and secondly why they are so readily and brutally attacked. I would suggest the answer to these two considerations is not because symbols are trivial but because they are very meaningful to humans. In fact, one would not be stretching it too far to say that they in themselves can contribute in part to the thread…
Read moreSue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
"A woman miscarries because the hormones in that particular pregnancy do not rise sufficiently to maintain the pregnancy or stimulate breast cell growth, that is why she miscarries."
Ms Francis - you have it back-to-front - the pregnancy hormones fall in a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) BECAUSE the foetus dies - not the other way round.
Miscarriages can occur at any time from conception - there is no correlation between the timing of miscarriage and the stage of breast development - it depends when the miscarriage happens.
Yet another example of an ideological argument that misses basic physiology.
Babette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Dianna and Sue,
Further to my comment about the difference in breast-cancer risks between first trimester miscarriages and induced abortion, there are 2 studies, Witt et al Frertil Steril 1990; 53:1029-36 and Kunz J, Keller PJ Br J Ob Gyn 1976; 83:640-4 in which the researcher said they could tell which pregnancies would miscarry by measuring the levels of estradiol - in those destined to miscarry, the levels did not rise about the non-pregnant level. It is exposure estradiol which causes the risk, not the D & C.
Also Dianna you expressed interest in animal experiments. Look at the research by Russo J Russo IH Am J Path 1980; 100:497 512
The Russo's research was on rats - pregnant rats were exposed to a known carcinogen, those that were aborted developed breast cancer, those which were allowed to proceed to term did not.
Babette Francis
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Ms Francis - pregnancy progress is monitored with bets HCG - not oestradiol.
By all means present your personal ethical views about induced abortion, but it's preferable not to make assertions about the science unless you understand it.
Babette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Dianna and Sue,
Further to my comment about the difference in breast-cancer risks between first trimester miscarriages and induced abortion, there are 2 studies, Witt et al Frertil Steril 1990; 53:1029-36 and Kunz J, Keller PJ Br J Ob Gyn 1976; 83:640-4 in which the researcher said they could tell which pregnancies would miscarry by measuring the levels of estradiol - in those destined to miscarry, the levels did not rise about the non-pregnant level. It is exposure estradiol which causes the risk, not the D & C.
Also Dianna you expressed interest in animal experiments. Look at the research by Russo J Russo IH Am J Path 1980; 100:497 512
The Russo's research was on rats - pregnant rats were exposed to a known carcinogen, those that were aborted developed breast cancer, those which were allowed to proceed to term did not.
Babette Francis
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Babette Francis
Sue Ieraci has provided extensive peer reviewed knowledge and facts regarding induced and spontaneous abortion. You have tried to obfuscate basic facts regarding female reproductive system – not once mentioning your anti-choice stance, your lack of care AFTER birth has occurred.
You are part of a very active Christian lobby group.http://www.womenaustralia.info/biogs/AWE0738b.htm
For example, only recently the Victorian Bailleau government cancelled the Take a Break Occasional…
Read moreBabette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Dianna,
Read moreI have also provided peer reviewed studies - and there are more of them at http://bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm
I did not know it was required that I state my religion and my pro-life stance before sending a comment to The Conversation, but I have never tried to conceal either, and you could easily ascertain information about me from Who's Who or Google. It is ridiculous that you deny scientific information because the person who provides it is a Catholic. Have…
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Ms Francis
"I did not know it was required that I state my religion and my pro-life stance before sending a comment to The Conversation"
We are discussing induced abortion are we not?
"When did an abortion provider ever house a woman and her baby or even give her rent money as we do?"
"Abortion providers" are more accurately described as medical practitioners, providing a wide range of services to a variety of people. As for aid to women and girls by medical practitioners, just off the…
Read moreSue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Ms Francis sways below: "I notice Dr. Sue has not answered my question about the 14-year-old pregnant girl who is not informed prior to her abortion that her pregnancy if carried to term and followed by breast feeding will give her substantial protection against a potentially fatal and mutilating disease."
Ms Francis - I have already corrected your misunderstanding of the hormonal associations of miscarriage. What happens to the rare pregnant 14 year old girls appears to have no bearing here.
Babette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Dianna,
Read moreI am "Mrs" Francis, you are welcome to use my Christian name, Babette, without a prefix, but please don't tag me with the feminist "Ms" which is designed to conceal a woman's marital status and carries all that feminist baggage with it, including abortion on demand.
Medical practitioners, including abortionists are PAID for their services. I have not heard of any of them - other than the pro-life ones - saying to a worried pregnant woman "You don't have to have an abortion, I can help…
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Ms Francis - admit it - you do not understand the physiology of pregnancy. Your arguments about hormones, miscarriage and breast development are simply incorrect.
Babette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Dr. Ieraci,
Read moreYour correction of whether it is low levels of HCG or Estradiol which identifies a pregnancy that is doomed to miscarry is irrelevant to my contention that a full-term pregnancy at an early age reduces the risk of breast cancer, especially if followed by breastfeeding. I have in front of me the diagram of the Swedish researchers who used measurements of Estradiol to identify which pregnancies would miscarry; presumably in these pregnancies the fetus was still alive but the researchers…
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Ms Francis - you appear not to have understood:
The falling levels of beta HCG track a miscarriage happening. The hormones levels drop BECAUSE the pregnancy is failing, they do not cause the pregnancy to fail.
"The case of the pregnant 14 yr old is not so rare" you say.
What is the incidence of pregnancy in 14 yr olds in Australia, Ms Francis, and how would this influence the fact that large studies show no difference between spontaneous and induced miscarriage?
Babette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Dr. Ieraci,
Read moreI appear to have studied breast development more than you have, and I have breast-fed eight babies, each for well over a year, so I know a little about the topic. The low levels of estradiol indicate a pregnancy doomed to miscarry. Because these levels are low, they also do not stimulate breast cell development. However this is not the case in a healthy pregnancy which is aborted - in these cases the breast cells have multiplied but their maturation into stable milk-producing…
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Ms Francis - you may have breast-fed lots of babies but you have clearly neither studied, not understood, physiology.
There are three particularly major flaws in your line of argument:
1. The hormone levels are a MARKER of a failing pregnancy, not a cause of it. Whether the baby dies by spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or induced abortion, the fall in hormone levels reflects the gestation no longer being active.
I have explained this in simple terms over and over, but you keep ignoring it…
Read moreBabette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Dr.Sue,
Read moreYou may be using a feminist convention in addressing me as "Ms", but as I have clearly requested I find this distasteful in view of the feminist penchant for favouring abortion on demand, you might do me the courtesy of omitting the "Ms" and addressing me as Babette or Babette Francis. "Ms" is not a "modern" convention, it is merely a politically correct one imposed on women whether they like it or not, and rarely used for famous women, e.g. Mrs. Whitlam, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Rudd…
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Mrs Babette Francis
If you had not wanted to addressed by the title of 'Ms' you only had to say your preferred 'Mrs'. There is no insult or slur in using the title of 'Ms' than it is for a man to be addressed as 'Mr'.
In wrapping up my contribution to this thread, I wish to make the following points:
1. You have selectively used articles which support your impossible goal of wanting all women to have babies before - was it 30? This is called cherry picking.
2. You have actually defamed…
Read moreSue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
No, Ms Francis - you still don't get it.
Your "The point is that in a miscarriage the hormone levels are falling or have not risen above the non-pregnant state..." is purely and simply wrong. OF course the hormones have risen from the non-pregnant state - that's what a pregnancy test shows.
The hormone level reached depends on the gestational stage prior to the foetal demise - whether by spontaneous or induced means. An woman having an induced abortion at six weeks gestation will have lower hormone levels than a woman having an spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) at twelve weeks.
Please don't just keep repeating your erroneous assertion - maybe get someone who has studied physiology to explain it to you.
Babette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Diana,
Read moreI have made it clear I have no objection to anyone omitting the "Mrs" from my title and just addressing me as Babette, Babette Francis or B. Francis. (I never added the "Mrs" to any of my comments). What I object to is the "Ms" added to my name - it is like the way the unions address each other as "Comrade". "Ms" is similarly ideological baggage.
You have also misunderstood my argument about women who get pregnant under age 30. I am not suggesting anyone should get pregnant…
Babette Francis
Coordinator of Endeavour Forum
Sue,
Read moreAgain the discourtesy of addressing me as "Ms" Francis when I have repeatedly objected. I should clarify that the hormone levels have fallen to the non-pregnant stage when the fetus is dead in what will be a miscarriage, but in a pregnancy destined to miscarry the hormone levels do not rise to the same level as in a healthy pregnancy of the same gestational age which is destined to be aborted. It is the hormone levels that cause the breast cell proliferation and those hormone levels will continue…
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Ms Francis - again the repetition of your misunderstanding about pregnancy hormones.
There is no identifying " a pregnancy destined to miscarry" until the foetus stops developing.
I have looked after hundreds - if not thousands - of women with suspected miscarriage over many years, and have measured and reviewed levels of beta HCG many many times.
I have said nothing at all in my repleuis about either oestradiol (as it is spelt in Australia) or ovulation - you appear to have made this up.
I acknowledge that you have strong moral veiws about abortion - that is your right. That does not, however, allow you to make up your own physiology.
Let me ask you this: What is the beta HCG level of a pregnancy "doomed to miscarry", before foetal demise starts, at twelve weeks? How does it differ from any other pregnancy at twelve weeks? Please look up the actual figures before you reply - there are standardised ranges that are easy to find.