Southside Pride

Who would dare criticize the Race for the Cure?

Thousands of people getting together, doing something that makes them feel good, and raising millions of dollars for cancer research.

In 2001 the Minnesota Race for the Cure raised $1.8 million for breast cancer research. 75 percent of the net funds stay in Minnesota, and 25 percent go to the national Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Research Program.
Barbara Ehrenreich, in a speech at the 2002 Breast Cancer Action Town Meeting, said:

“So what does it hurt to have this massive breast cancer culture? You could say: whatever gets you through the night . . .

“But there are at least two major problems with it:

“First, the breast cancer culture has encouraged a dangerous complacency about current medical approaches to breast cancer treatment. Implicit in all the pink ribbons and the drumbeat for regular mammograms was the promise that your cancer could be cured—if only you bring it to the doctor's attention early enough. In other words, there's nothing wrong with the so-called treatments—the burden is on you to get your tumor detected 'early.'

“But as I wrote to the Komen message board: not all small tumors are 'early' and more easily treated. In fact, there is no single disease 'breast cancer'—probably a multitude of diseases of various degrees of virulence. But right now, they're all being treated as a single disease.

“Worse, current treatments—surgery, chemotherapy and radiation—carry no guarantee of long-term survival and are notoriously debilitating and disfiguring themselves. Every year, more than 40,000 American women die of breast cancer, large numbers of whom had duly submitted to screening mammograms and to the nightmarish treatments that ensued.

“Even mammograms are something to worry about: Only one carcinogen has been definitely established as a cause of breast cancer, and that is ionizing radiation of the kind emitted by mammography machines.

“A second big problem with the pink ribbon culture: While they want a cure—we ALL do—they say almost nothing about the need to find the CAUSE of breast cancer, which is very likely environmental. This omission makes sense: breast cancer would hardly be the darling of corporate charities if its complexion changed from pink to green.

“But by ignoring or underemphasizing the issue of environmental causes, the pink-ribbon crowd function as willing dupes of what could be called the Cancer Industrial Complex: by which I mean the multinational corporate enterprise which with the one hand doles out carcinogens and disease and, with the other, offers expensive, semitoxic, pharmaceutical treatments. Breast Cancer Awareness month, for example, is sponsored by AstraZeneca (the manufacturer of Tamoxifen [a semi-toxic pill used in the treatment of breast cancer]) which until 1999 was also the fourth largest producer of pesticides in the United States, including at least one known carcinogen.”

The Komen Foundation Partners include American Airlines, BMW and Ford Motor Company. In an article “Relationship Between Genetic Damage from PAH in Breast Tissue and Breast Cancer,” F. Perera and others in Carcinogenesis, July 2000, say Polcyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are widespread envronmental contaminants that are generated by gasoline and oil combustion and also are found in cigarette smoke and broiled meat. In lab experiments, PAH cause mammary cancer in animals.

Another Komen Foundation Partner is OxyChem. They manufacture bonding resins, chlorine, polyuerethane chain extenders and solvents. The American Journal of Industrial Medicine in 1991 noted that breast cancer mortality was 1.64 times higher among pharmaceutical workers and 1.51 times higher among electrical equipment manufacturing workers who are often exposed to high levels of solvents.

It is no wonder that partners like these would much prefer people running after a cure rather than stopping and discovering the causes of breast cancer.

Ellie J. Emanuel, one of the co-directors of the Women's Cancer Resource Center, says, “We support the Race for the Cure, but it's important to put it into perspective. When you're diagnosed with breast cancer it's important to begin to focus, to get awareness. And you need all the support you can get. We do support that. But, we should look beyond that.

“It's a community issue. It's not just about treatment. We need to pay attention to causes. We are committed to supporting women in their personal journey, and once they're through that to broaden that to get them to look at their neighborhoods, their schools, and their incinerators.

“Some of them change their diets. They get rid of red meat, alcohol, and heavily processed food. They get organic. They re-evaluate everything.

“There are a number of other Women's Cancer Resource Centers throughout the country. The one in Mendocino has been active for 10 to 15 years.

“A concept that has been accepted in Northern Europe is the Precautionary Principle. We can spend forever doing research on a subject and never come up with the definitive answer, but if we can say there is reason to believe we should take precaution with certain chemicals, this suggests the preponderance of evidence insists on certain courses of action. It was never actually proven that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer or stroke, but, clearly, the preponderance of evidence suggests strongly that conclusion.”

On October 13, 2000, the Women's Cancer Resource Center sponsored The Toxic Industry Tour—Stop Cancer Where it Starts. Their first stop was the downtown garbage burner because of its dioxin emissions. From their report: “The Hennepin County Incinerator located in downtown Minneapolis emits dioxin, which causes cancer. Dioxin is a by-product of burning chlorine-based products such as #3 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic in children's toys, bottles, and paper and wood products.

“Dioxin is a known carcinogen as classified by the U. S. EPA. Dioxin is the most harmful substance known to humankind. The U. S. EPA Dioxin Reassessment Report issued after years of study found dioxin to be 10 times more harmful to human health than originally reported.

“Municipal incinerators like HERC are the major air polluters emitting dioxin, followed by hospital incinerators. The pulp and paper making industry is another major polluter of the air and rivers and ultimately fish and humans.”

The most common form of dioxin is a byproduct of the bleach used to make paper white. When that paper is burned, dioxin is released. Winona LaDuke wrote in The Circle, in August 2001, “With the help of new sophisticated tracking mechanisms, it is found that the residue of our own garbage is what is in the breast milk of Alaskan women.” Of the top ten sources of dioxin in the breast milk of Inuit women in a remote Canadian village, two came from Minnesota.

In their pamphlet “Dioxin Phase-out-Why we can't wait,” the Women's Cancer Resource Center says, “Most Americans get 280 times the EPA's 'safe' amount of dioxin daily. We're exposed to 95% of the dioxin through meat and dairy products. That's because airborne dioxin coming from incinerators or factories can travel 1000 miles, settling onto plants, soil and water. Grazing animals eat the plants and store the dioxin in their fats and internal organs. As we eat full-fat milk, cheese or fatty meats or fish, we take in dioxin.”

Hennepin County Environmental Services say it does the following with:
Poison, such as pesticides, insecticides, etc.—”incinerate them at very high temperatures”

Corrosive products (acids and bases), such as lime remover, oven cleaner, etc.—”these wastes are incinerated”

Flammable solids, such as adhesives, driveway sealer, roofing tars, etc.—”high temperature incineration”

Oxidizers, such as bleach, hardeners, etc.—”high temperature incineration.”
Incineration doesn't get rid of the problem, it just puts it into the air.
The Toxic Industry Tour made two other stops.

They stopped at the corporate offices of TruGreen-Chemlawn because the company uses dicamba, a known carcinogen, the organochlorine 2,4-D (sold as Trimec). The National Cancer Institute found children are 6.5 times more likely to develop leukemia if their parents used pesticides.

They stopped at Koch Refinery because they emit benzene. Benzene is the same carcinogen in cigarettes. The company has since seen fit to comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations and stop their emissions.

Carol Johnson is the Environmental Program Coordinator at the Women's Cancer Resource Center. She gives talks to groups about the dangers of ordinary household chemicals. She generally begins her talk by saying, “In 1940 1 in 20 women had breast cancer; in 1972 it was 1 in 14; today it is 1 in 8. Are we willing to accept 1 in 4? Because that's where we're headed.”

The World Health Organization says 80 percent of all cancers are environmental. Carol Johnson says 30 percent of all breast cancer is explainable. They estimate 5 to 10 percent is genetically predetermined. Another 10 to 20 percent is because of five high risk factors:

1. menstruation before 12,
2. late menopause (after 50),
3. never been pregnant,
4. late pregnancy,
5. never breast fed.

All of these factors are related to the body producing more estrogen, which is a cancer cell promoter. Some chemicals mimic estrogen and take over its natural function. The greater exposure to these chemicals, the greater the percentage of cancers.

There are other high risk activities that can increase the risk of breast cancer:

1. High fat diet
2. More than 1 alcoholic beverage a day
3. A sedentary life style
4. Not enough fruits and vegetables,
5. Taking hormone replacement therapy—early birth control pills had high dosages of estrogen, and estrogen is often prescribed for women entering menopause.

The Women's Cancer Resource Center has a pamphlet, Pathways to Prevention, Eight Practical Steps-From the Personal to the Political-Toward Reducing the Risk of Breast Cancer, that outlines in simple terms what women can do to prevent and reduce the risk of breast cancer.

The Breast Cancer Action group from San Francisco has had remarkable success linking up with community environmental groups. They worked with a clean air group in Oakland to close an incinerator in West Oakland that was burning medical wastes and creating dioxin. They've moved across town, now, and are working to stop a factory from emitting contaminants. They are lobbying the San Francisco City Council to enact the Precautionary Principle into the Code of Ordinances. They want to make it part of the City's decision-making process. They particularly want to affect the City's purchasing policy. Each product the City buys should answer the following questions: What is the life cycle of this product? What are its total effects? What is its ultimate cost?

They are working to monitor dioxin levels in breast milk. It is estimated that a baby receives its lifetime safe limit of dioxin in the first six months of nursing. Every expert consulted, however, still strongly recommends that mothers nurse their babies to provide immunities and emotional bonding. It would be best if the mother avoided fatty foods, meats and high fat dairy products.

Some women who attended last September's Breast Cancer Action Town Meeting in San Francisco signed up for an action in October:

“ . . . a dozen women braved the fog and cold weather to show up at San Francisco's Fifth Street entrance ramp to the freeway during evening rush hour. We held signs that made the connection between pollution and cancer, and cancer and corporate profits. We gave out flyers about the national Breast Cancer Awareness Month scam to commuters creeping toward the Bay Bridge.

“One of us bared her mastectomy scar in order to make the epidemic visible to the hundreds of people headed home in their cars. Several passers-by asked us questions. After we explained our reasons for demonstrating, half a dozen picked up placards and joined us. As the rush hour traffic thickened, two police on scooters came to tell us we had to move, that we needed a permit to demonstrate (what happened to our constitutional right to peaceful assembly, we wondered?). We smiled and continued to hold our signs. With a vroom, ten police motorcycles reared up behind us. Though scared by their presence and chilled by the October evening, still, we stood, determined to tell our truth. One of us whipped out a video camera; two others, their cell phones. A couple of paddy wagons and a number of police cars later, we still remained, standing tall in our resolve to educate others about the environmental links to breast cancer.

“The police who undoubtedly have mothers, daughters, wives and friends touched by this epidemic, remained peaceful and pleasant, letting us continue. Their presence actually attracted even more notice from passing motorists who reached through their car windows to take our leaflets. Word is spreading: pollution causes cancer. Cancer causes corporate profits, and we're fuming about it!”