Advocate Spotlight
The Politics of Cancer
Submitted by Margo Simon Golden, President, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition.
We would all like to believe that an illness as widespread and often devastating as cancer would somehow be immune from politics. Unfortunately, another example of the ”politics of cancer” was displayed as Susan G. Komen for the Cure, influenced by their fear of lost financial and political support from the right, attempted to defund part of Planned Parenthood’s health services to women. This is not new.
Well meaning organizations are often influenced by outside factors which divert them from their true and stated mission: to rid the world of cancer.
Large organizations often end up compromising themselves and their mission by aligning with companies that are part of the problem and not the solution. We have seen this before. For example, the American Cancer Society has a history of developing public policies and programs that demonstrate a problematic association with the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association that represents companies that make and use such chemicals as polystyrene and formaldehyde. Let me provide you with an example of the negative impact of this affiliation. In 1981, the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a branch of the National Institute of Health, listed formaldehyde as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” In 2011, NTP listed formaldehyde as “known to be a human carcinogen.” Thirty long years lapsed before the NTP changed formaldehyde’s status, and in those thirty years the NTP only issued ten reports on carcinogens. That would seem like a curious story, until you learn that lobbying by the ACC delayed the release of impactful scientific reports for years at the expense of cancer prevention from the carcinogens we are all exposed to.
While the Komen Foundation’s decision to eliminate funding for breast cancer screenings for low income women at Planned Parenthood is troubling, of greater concern is our knowing that in the United States, “industrial pollution begins in the womb” – and the fact that we accept it. Ken Cook and the Environmental Working Group demonstrated that infants are born carrying a burden of hazardous industrial chemicals passed along from their mother’s umbilical cord. This is the “big picture” of where the “politics of cancer” interferes with the goal of cancer prevention – and this is where the outrage should be. During our past forty year ‘war on cancer’ an estimated amount of $200 billion has been spent on research for diagnosis and treatments, yet only 1-3% of the funds has been spent on research to stop breast cancer before it starts, primary prevention. We can no longer continue to manage the allowable risks of synthetic toxic chemicals. We need higher environmental standards.
Living with metastatic breast cancer for the past eleven years, I am grateful and thankful to all the dedicated men and women, past and present, in all capacities, who helped to advance cancer detection and treatment options, and hope that I never run out of options. However, I support, first and foremost, the common sense approach of preventing cancer before it starts. True prevention of breast cancer is changing our strategy, policy, and research funding allocations to reduce the daily contamination, bioaccumulation, health impacts, and health care costs from carcinogens and hormone disrupting compounds.
My fear is not stopping this epidemic here and now. My fear is passing this epidemic on to future generations, our children and grandchildren, to carry the burden of cancer. Join Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition in their education and advocacy work which supports a systemic transformation and passage of the Massachusetts Safer Alternative Bill, Federal Safe Chemicals Act, Federal Endocrine Disruption Act, and Federal Ban Poisonous Substance Act. Let’s work together.
