Pink Ribbons, Inc. (2011) User Reviews

Seeing Red About the Green in Pink

[soncoman · 8/10 · 26 June 2012]

You can't walk into a store these days without being inundated by the ubiquitous pink ribbons adorning every sort of product from food stuffs to clothing to automobiles. You've probably purchased something that promised a donation towards the "fight' against breast cancer. Maybe you've even participated in a 5K run to support family or friends dealing with the disease. You have the best intentions, and you're not alone. One organization has raised over 1.9 billion dollars via this method. So what has the real impact been of this phenomenon?

Sadly, not much. This disturbing fact, along with many others of equal discomfort, are at the heart of "Pink Ribbons, Inc.," a new documentary now in general release. Director Lea Pool takes Dr. Samantha King's 2006 book "Pink Ribbons, Inc. - Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy" and expands upon it via interviews, documentary footage, and current data.

Here are three facts gleaned from the film that should give everyone cause to pause:

* Since 1940, the chances of a woman developing some form of breast cancer have gone from 1 in 22 to 1 in 8.

* Only 5% of the money spent on breast cancer research goes into researching environmental causes.

* A large number of products sold that donate a portion of their proceeds towards breast cancer organizations contain ingredients known or suspected to cause cancer.

The film traces the transmogrification of the "fight" against breast cancer from political activism to consumer activism. Remember the days when you just wrote a check to The American Cancer Society? Or you joined a protest march against a corporate polluter? Now you can spend 50 cents on a container of yogurt, peel off the lid, wash it, stick it in an envelope, spend 45 cents on a stamp, and mail it back to the company so that they will make a 10 cent donation. Do the math.

And what about companies that "enlist in the war on cancer" that are on one hand developing pharmaceutical treatments for breast cancer but on the other hand sell pesticides containing cancer-causing agents?

As good as this film is in exposing the issues surrounding cause marketing, it fails to answer one simple question (though apparently not from trying. Companies are notoriously tight-lipped on the subject.) – How much do these companies profit from the sale of these products versus how much do they contribute to the cause? As one of the members of a Stage IV Cancer Support group asks, "Are they profiting from my disease?" If the answer is yes, would you still buy that paper towel?

The film's bottom line is this - Has the cheerful, fuzzy pink aura built around breast cancer to facilitate "awareness" and charitable giving obfuscated the harsh realities of the disease? We still don't know what causes it; the treatments are pretty much the same as they were 50 years ago, mortality rates are the same as they have been. Has the "branding" of the cause led us to fail to ask the tough questions? Where is the money going? How is it being spent? What exactly is being researched?

See this film. It may give you something to think about before you sign up for that next run...

www.worstshowontheweb.com

Awareness vs. glorification

[StevePulaski · 8/10 · 27 October 2012]

I went shopping at a local supermarket today, bought roughly forty items, and three of them bare a pink box supporting some breast cancer awareness fund. When does the ambition of creating awareness simply become lucrative glamorization? I hear more about walks, runs, jumps, and efforts to promote charities raising money to donate to a breast cancer organization, but scarcely hear about advances in science, technology, or medicines to try and prevent the disease. Is our money being put to use or is it put to fund another gimmicky public charity? Breast cancer is the leading cause of death of women in America, and cancer in itself is one of the most common diseases among both sexes. I know for a fact I'm personally at risk of developing prostate cancer because of the checkered history in my family. I've long thought if companies really would love to find a cure for cancer, or would that cease in the immense profits that charities continue to turn in? Recently, I watched a documentary on the pitifully disappointing American healthcare system called Escape Fire: The Fight to Rescue American Healthcare. A rare documentary, seemingly lacking a specific political bias, the film featured a female subject that bluntly stated that it's almost as if the system doesn't want you die or get better, but just keep coming back and handing money over the counter.

Pink Ribbons, Inc., based on the 2006 novel by Dr. Samantha King, professor of kinesiology and health studies at Queen's University, explores the possibility and the stunning proposition that the "pink ribbon campaign," whose efforts are directed specifically at creating breast cancer awareness, is only a shameless cash-grab for companies to utilize while contributing very little of their profits to famous organizations. Some companies products that are donating towards breast cancer research include chemicals that possibly contribute higher risk of developing the disease. Not to mention, with so many organizations, big and small, and so many corporations shelling out products apparently with profits being donated to cancer research, it results in very disorganized money patterns. Millions being donated, with little rhyme or reason, and little coming out that is revolutionary.

There comes a point where we can seemingly define the sincerity of companies attempting to fund breast cancer research and some simply trying to bank off a serious disease. When Susan G. Komen and Avon commit to holding a charity event, you almost feel compelled to trust them because they've given millions upon millions of dollars in efforts to find cures. But when we begin seeing pink handguns, we question how we've drifted from sincerity to shallow consumerism. I've frequently seen teenagers walk around with thick bracelets proclaiming "I LOVE BOOBIES. KEEP A BREAST." Do they wear them because they believe in stopping breast cancer, or do they just love having something as provocative as "BOOBIES" on their wrist? The same can go for those brazen "Cancer Sucks" t-shirts. Why? Interviews conducted are with the author of the Pink Ribbons, Inc. novel Samantha King, Barbara Eherenreich, writer of many books around the cancer, who resents the idea of softening the disease into making it "normal and feminine," and my personal favorite, the sassy, shamelessly blunt Barbara Brenner, a health activist, diagnosed twice, and not afraid to attack some corporations' lucrative practices. She makes no hesitation to call out Yoplait Yogurt for their "Save Lids to Save Lives" campaign, where if one were to peel off a lid of their yogurt, clean it up, then mail it back to the company, a dime would be donated to the Susan G. Komen Foundations. Brenner states that if you were to eat three cans of yogurt, everyday, and send the lid back for four months straight, the time the event was going on that, you'd successfully donate only $34 to the Komen foundation. "Bottom line, write a check," she says.

Easily, the most intimate shot of the picture involves an obese African-American woman who struggles to walk at one of the sponsored breast cancer walks. We are unaware if she's diagnosed with the disease, knows someone who is, or simply walks out of the goodness of her heart. For about thirty seconds, we watch as she pursues on, through sweat and exhaustion; something about that scene made me want to help her along or sit her down and give her the resources necessary to complete the walk. It is one of the most affecting shots in any documentary I've seen, mainly because of the impressionistic prints it leaves on the viewer.

The speakers we see in the film are mostly women, understandably so. One thing I caught early on that, beneath their deep intelligence and their wide range of talents, lied an angry, seemingly bitter core, in someways throwing the documentary a curveball. These women are mainly angry at the glorification of a painful disease that deteriorates the energy and body of a woman, but it seems they occasionally talk down to those who participate in walks and runs for the charitable organizations of the disease when they appear to be doing nothing but trying to take part in a community event to raise money or simply partake in the activities to memorialize a loved-one. It seems unfair to pull the "you don't understand suffering" card to those who are benefiting those who are actually suffering, don't you think? Starring: Barbara Brenner, Barbara Enherenreich, and Samantha King. Directed by: Léa Pool.

The film is far from perfect but it does hit on some good questions.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 20 October 2012]

"Pink Ribbons, Inc." is a far from perfect film but it's also a film that dares to ask many important questions. While the masses blindly buy their pink ribboned products and corporations thereby get richer, this film dares to question many things about this trendy cause. Because it will get you to think, it's well worth seeing. Some of the wonderful questions they pose include: There are some odd associations--such as many of the companies sticking the ribbons on their products ALSO produce carcinogenic products--such as cosmetics.

The percentage of the money from these ribbons that goes to research is negligible. Most folks buying the products and doing the cancer walks assume the bulk of the money is being used for research when it isn't.

Throwing money blindly at a problem may be a complete waste. There is no coordination among researchers and there is an assumption that money will lead to an elimination of the problem--providing a false sense of control.

There also were some parts in the film that irritated me. Either statements were made that were OPINION instead of fact-based bothered me and many important points were never mentioned. These include: The link between chemicals and cancers needs to be addressed. Research establishing links between product exposure and cancer have not been done on many items we use all the time. This was a great point but also problematic and something I disliked about the film. They never even discussed how many (if not most) cancers may be caused by genetics and a few of the people interviewed seemed to ASSUME certain chemicals are leading to higher incidence of cancer. No one mentions that PERHAPS the increase in cancer is simply because people are living much longer and the longer you live, the more likely you'll get cancer.

Oddly, no one in the film talked about how all the attention and money focused on breast cancer may lead to deaths--deaths because less attention and money is being spent on research on OTHER cancers and non-cancerous killers.

One lady asserted that cancer MAY be caused by viruses but, as I said above, the genetic link was NEVER mentioned in the film. This is VERY odd, as the link of genetics with breast cancer is very strong (i.e., it is often passed from generation to generation within families).

So, overall, I'd say the film is a mixed bag. I admire them for taking on a 'sacred cow' but also wish the film had maintained a much tighter focus--in other words, WHERE IS ALL THIS MONEY GOING? and DOES ANY OF THIS REALLY HELP? Worth seeing but don't think the film is Gospel, either.

Very important points raised, but credibility diminished by leaning on conspiracy

[eurograd · 6/10 · 29 March 2014]

Pink Ribbons, Inc. brings up compelling and unsettling issues about the commercialization of the "fight against breast cancer".

It presents a thorough history of how the pink ribbons became big business, while transforming female breast cancer into a hurdle that can or could always be fought, overcome and ultimately defeated if only the women facing it have the right attitude.

In this context, the documentary brings compelling testimony of women who were left behind the pink ribbon movement, the unwanted faces on runs and events: those who, despite doing all the 'right things' (exercise, auto-exams, early treatment) still got late stage non- treatable cancer for whom "living to see my grandchildren" is not an option and for whom death looms as a matter for, at best, couple years. These women, without resorting to self-pity, clearly explain through their ordeals how they feel alienated and left behind by the whole pink ribbon movement, as if they had the "wrong" type of cancer to be accepted by support groups or advocated for by associations and their events.

Nonetheless, the directors took an easy and unfortunate option that tarnishes the whole message of the documentary. They clang on one of the many scientifically plausible causes of cancer - environmental factors - and tried to construct a narrative where there is this whole conspiracy that thrives on cancer-awareness while preventing its cure, which would be easily achievable if only they investigated environmental factors that cause cancer. Mainstream science already knows, with quite some confidence, that cancer can have multiple factors determining its onset, and even people living very healthy lifestyles might still be affected by it. Environmental factors are one of many causes of cancer, but not the only one, and certainly not the only worth researching about. At this point, my score to this documentary went down from an 8.5, give or take, to 6.

Wonderful and dark look at an organization with a once pristine image

[mlbrown87 · 9/10 · 1 May 2012]

[...]The film looks at the issue from many different aspects. It looks at the marketing of a disease, and what could be called the "breast cancer industrial complex," in which many corporations are profiting from women's pain. They, of course, look at the amount of money that Komen spends on marketing, legal battles, and executive salaries versus the comparatively small amount that it contributes to research. It also examines the environmental hypocrisies of the pink ribbon movement, including the fact that many of the corporate sponsors of the movement have historically used products linked to cancer, such as Yoplait using RBGH-containing dairy. It looks at the fact that so little funding is designated to examining potential environmental causes such as pollutants, and the clear conflict of interest that would involve given the industrial contributors to Komen.

The film also explores the problems with Komen's messaging. They speak to a support group of women living with stage four breast cancer, who talk about how it feels to have cancer paraded as something pink and pretty and normal. (The filmmakers typically juxtaposed these interviews with shots of people at Komen race events waving pink pompoms and streamers and cheering.) They spoke candidly about how they feel that there is not a place for them in the current dialogue surrounding cancer, as they are viewed as the "angel of death" in a typical group of people living with breast cancer. They also touch on the sexualization of the disease, speculating that one of the reasons that it receives so much media attention is that it affords people the opportunity to say "breast" on the news. All of these interviews were incredibly poignant, articulate, and at times heart-wrenching, and while in general I would have liked to have had interviews with more people overall, the subjects that were featured were chosen very wisely.

This is an exemplary work of activist documentary filmmaking. Unlike some other examples of the genre, it does not beat you over the head with emotional pleas (though some moments are incredibly emotional), but rather calmly lays all of the rational arguments out before the viewer. It is a difficult task to take down a giant like Komen, but this film firmly does so with elegance and grace.

Read the full review here: http://mattreviewsstuff.com/2012/04/28/pink-ribbons-inc/

The truth as always is in the middle

[timmyj3 · 6/10 · 19 October 2012]

I was very eager to see this movie. I am a skeptic by nature and the barrage of pink the last few years has had me wondering. This movie has an agenda. The film wants to be the black in the pink parade. That is OK.

A valid point the film makes is that corporate America is making money on the "pink". Solid points are KFC making profits off selling dubious food under the "pink" banner. Estee Lauder selling cosmetics that may contain cancer causing ingredients under the "pink" logos. The NFL trying to refurbish their image with "pink" everything in October. Clearly most businesses involved have self serving motivations. I was happy to see that brought out.

They had some stage 4 cancer patients express their displeasure with the happy joyful pink parade. I sure respect the opinion of the ladies but I suspect their are an equal number of cancer patients that appreciate the attention of the pink awareness. We were not shown many differing opinions.

The film makes some great points about working on prevention instead of the phantom cure which may or may not come. This was a solid idea that should have been more fleshed out.

Where the film fails is making the environmental connection. It ventures into kooky junk science territory a bit here. They implied Ford should not be involved with breast cancer awareness because they make cars and cars pollute. OK.

We get to the end of the film and we are off the rails a bit now. We have to blame President Bush for "using" breast cancer awareness for his mid east policies advancement. (They must have missed Obama's use of breast cancer awareness 2009-2011) The movie was made in 2011.

Overall it is a bit of a mess in a cinematic sense. It is sort of hard to watch. It doesn't flow well. The people in the film all seemed a touch angry or just professional activists.

The film also seemed angry at the many and mostly good people trying to help other people and fight this horrible disease. I find it hard to fault people trying to raise money to help others in our communities even if the "pink" charities may have jumped the shark so to speak.

A great subject that is not popular to talk about. Too bad it wasn't done by competent people.

Provocative, excellent exposé of corporate exploitation of Breast Cancer Awareness Movement

[Turfseer · 10/10 · 3 November 2013]

The average person would never imagine that the ongoing feel-good Breast Cancer Awareness movement is profoundly wrong-headed, but this is essentially what the controversial and extremely informative documentary, Pink Ribbons, Inc., attempts to impart. Primarily taking on the Susan G. Komen Foundation and its chief executive officer, Nancy Brinker (sister of Susan G. Komen and a breast cancer survivor herself), who are in the forefront of raising money for breast cancer treatment, Director Lea Pool first questions the sincerity of the feel-good pink ribbon campaign.

Brinker defiantly states, "absolutely not", in response to the accusation that the Susan G. Komen Foundation and their supporters are putting a "pretty face" on breast cancer awareness. But it's interesting that she admits that without a positive spin, they could never attract the vast numbers of supporters that they do. It's understandable that those who promote the positive spin on breast cancer awareness do so as the thought of the reality of the disease, is hard to look at head on. But 'Pink Ribbons, Inc.' suggests that the sugar-coating of the disease, prevents the general public from realizing and ultimately admitting that certain cases may be indeed incurable and others, may be iatrogenic in nature—exacerbated by the traditional treatments breast cancer victims most often undergo. Indeed, the documentary features some enlightening comments from a former surgeon, Dr. Susan Love, critic of traditional "slash, burn and poison" treatments.

While the thousands upon thousands who participate in race/walk for the cure events may be well-intentioned, the documentary points out that they're both gullible and take an unquestioning stance as to deleterious corporate involvement in their fund-raising events as well as to where all the research money goes. Indeed, the most compelling argument of the documentary is that corporations exploit cancer for their own gain. By linking themselves to the breast cancer awareness movement, it's the perfect opportunity for corporations to market their products, under the ruse of helping 'fight' this insidious disease.

In certain cases, completely deceptive fund-raising campaigns were designed by these corporations. One example involved American Express— they agreed to donate one cent when you used your Amex credit card; the fine print made it clear, however, that they donated one cent for the ENTIRE purchase (so if you charged $1,000 to your card, they would still only be donating one cent). Fortunately, activists shut down the campaign through an email campaign of their own. Yoplait Yogurt was also forced to rescind their offer to donate 30 cents for each used Yoplait Yogurt lid mailed back in to the company—after it was discovered that Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a synthetic (man-made) hormone that is marketed to dairy farmers to increase milk production and linked to cancer, was used to create the Yoplait product. General Mills, owner of Yoplait, eventually discontinued use of the growth hormone in Yoplait, as a result of another activist campaign against them.

The myopic view of the supporters of the breast cancer awareness movement is reflected in their complete lack of interest in where all the contributions go. The assumption is that the cancer researchers and drug manufacturers 'know what they're doing,' and they should be 'trusted.' The reality is that if the some of the drugs 'work', it's only a matter of extending the life of the breast cancer victim, a few months at best. But of course what is not mentioned, is the quality of life of the 'survivor'. 'Pink Ribbons, Inc.' argues for investment in prevention strategies and research into environment causes, which of course is antithetical to the corporate culture, which is basically out to make a buck.

Major corporate contributors to the breast cancer awareness have products full of carcinogenic ingredients. The Estee Lauder company is singled out particularly for their hypocrisy—promoting their cosmetic products loaded with dangerous chemicals linked to cancer, while at the same time, collecting monies for a 'cure'. Just as garish is Kentucky Fried Chicken whose partnership with Komen appears to be absurd, given that the type of food they sell, is not considered to be at all healthy (Komen defended this particular campaign by arguing that KFC was promoting grilled, not fried chicken).

'Pink Ribbons, Inc.', also delves into the history of breast cancer fund-raising. In fact, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which began in 1982, was actually introduced by a pharmaceutical company. The original ribbon wasn't pink but salmon-colored and the woman who designed it refused to be bought out after a pharmaceutical company attempted to buy the original design (they circumvented her by simply changing the color to pink).

Ultimately, the co-opting of Breast Cancer awareness and fund-raising by Big Pharma and other corporate entities, is American as apple pie. The value of this documentary is that individuals who watch it, may begin to question whether both the orthodox medical and corporate establishments really have a true interest in helping to prevent the spread of breast cancer. Researching prevention strategies, not finding some kind of illusory 'cure' that lines the pockets of corporate CEOs and their physician minions, really is where a good deal of the money Komen raises, should go. It is unlikely that the majority of people watching this documentary will be swayed, as it is much more comforting to put on a pink ribbon, than take an interest in whether your corporate sponsor is involved for their own profit and to inquire for what purpose your monetary contribution is being utilized.

Mixed feelings

[itemlidlid · 6/10 · 8 October 2012]

While I don't agree with some of the main points made by the documentary, I appreciate the film's honesty in discussing the corporate culture that has become pervasive in breast cancer fund-raising. I find it bizarre that there is this culture in the US that seems to think that throwing money at a cause with inevitably lead to solutions. The film makes a great point about holding the health and research industry more accountable. People are pouring money down the drain funding basic science research and incorrect mouse models that will never be translated into treatments for human beings. They are supporting monolithic institutions like the research and health care industries that have their own self-interests at heart. Researchers and medical professionals make their livelihood off of this funding. The majority of them don't have any real interest in finding a cure when they can milk the cash cow for their own benefit for years.

The Taste of Bitter Whine: Cancer vs. Capitalism

[Eschete · 31 January 2013]

Only among the left-wing lunatics that make documentaries for the National Film Board of Canada could one find the kind of person who would complain that the experience of getting a deadly disease is made somehow less dignified because of its association with corporate giving. Author Barbara Ehrenreich, cancer survivor, complains about everything she can think of: that anti-cancer activists are annoyingly upbeat, that some of the products sold to support breast cancer research are cuddly or cute, that the grim, sad, angry sorts of cancer patients out there don't get enough airplay. This documentary remedies that with several wrenching interviews with weeping cancer patients suffering from end -stage cancer. See, audience? What do you think of those stupid little ribbons now, huh?

Samantha King even goes so far as to call an upbeat attitude in he face of the disease "tyranny." As in "tyranny of cheerfulness."

The Susan G. Komen Foundation ran afoul of feminists a few years back by daring not to support Planned Parenthood's abortion-on-demand factories. It seems Lea Pool and her backers at the National Film Board have fired a dark and angry salvo back at the "pink ribbon" industry that, if the film's subtext is anything to go by, is guilty mainly of making it more difficult to politicize the disease and make it the realm of angry feminists with anti- capitalist leanings.

Well-produced, but probably not a fair portrayal of mainstream and corporate anti-cancer efforts. Cynical and borderline juvenile in its contrarianism. C+.

Capitalizing on good intentions

[marcobrcc · 7/10 · 13 January 2024]

Same old story: charities profiting from people's struggles with sickness. Whether it's big names like Ferragni and Balocco or small research institutions studying rare diseases, the scheme is always the same.

Does the cheerful image built around breast cancer really help ill women, or does it hide the harsh truth? We still don't know what causes it, treatments haven't changed in 50 years, and survival rates are the same. Where's the donated money going? How's it used? Before you join the next charity run, think about it. Donations often end up in basic science and flawed research models that don't help people. Big institutions, inclluding the health care industry, benefit, and those in it make a living from the funds. The main focus here seems more on cashing in for personal gain. The prevailing notion that a complex problem can be solved by simply pouring money into it is a quintessentially American capitalist mindset, albeit fundamentally flawed.

Unproductive Polemic

[laura-401-116034 · 1/10 · 19 June 2012]

As the Founder and President of a non-profit organization which raises funds for breast cancer research I found Pink Ribbons, Inc. disturbing and unproductive. I was inclined to rattle off each offense and elaborate on why I disagree. After having settled down a bit I will, instead, express a concise reply.

I fear this film stigmatizes the business of raising funds for a worthy cause into something ugly and disingenuous. I fear movie viewers will be confused and demoralized by the film's ugly message. And, I fear past supporters may feel so degraded and shamed by this film that they will choose to direct their efforts and money elsewhere.

We at The Lynn Sage Foundation agree that a collaborative approach to medical research is ideal and that activism can be constructive. Transparency is essential. Research into environmental causes of cancer is also very welcome. Funding worthy projects is simply not possible without the aid of corporations and individuals. Government dollars are scarce and dwindling.

While their were some useful messages within the movie, the emphasis placed on sensationalism and inaccuracies is useless. We, and we presume many of our non-profits peers, would welcome the help of corporations, individuals and associates to collaborate on finding the causes, better treatments and a eventually a cure for this terrible disease.

Horrible Premise For A Movie

[jack31961 · 1/10 · 21 November 2019]

I just don't understand how anyone could make a movie like this. The Pink Ribbon movement has raised billions of dollars and saved hundreds of thousands of women. How do you conclude that corporations are in it for person profit? I see misleading statements, and downright lies. Usually, I can see some sort of political agenda in a piece of propaganda, but this film leaves me baffled. I haven't ever been angry at a documentary, but this one did it. This could cost women their lives, simply because the misinformed might just by the lies it perpetuates.Film should inform and uplift, not do terrible harm.