Download Newsletter #107 in PDF Format

x
Source
Issue #107
www.bcaction.org
Fall 2009
A Whole New Level of
Pinkwashing: Eli Lilly is
By Kimberly Bormann and Alice Price-Styles
B
CA is back at it again with our new Think Before You
Pink® campaign for 2009. As with past campaigns, this
year we’re identifying another pinkwasher. We coined
the term “pinkwashing” several years ago to help us
identify companies that claim to care about breast cancer but
profit from the sale of products linked to the disease.
Last year’s Put a Lid on It campaign spotlighted a problem
with General Mills’s Yoplait yogurt pink ribbon campaign.
Yoplait yogurt containers featured pink ribbons on the
lids and urged consumers to “save lids and save lives.”
Unfortunately, Yoplait was manufactured with milk from cows
treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH),
an artificial growth stimulant that has been linked to cancer.
Pressure from our members convinced General Mills to use
rBGH-free milk for Yoplait, and Dannon followed suit shortly
after. This victory eliminated rBGH-stimulated milk from
two-thirds of the U.S. dairy market.
But as long as rBGH is manufactured, we remain at risk,
because rBGH-stimulated milk does not require special
labeling. In fact, in some states labeling a product as
rBGH-free is prohibited. Eli Lilly is now the sole worldwide
manufacturer of rBGH.
The best way to eliminate this risk is to go to rBGH's source,
and make one simple demand: Eli Lilly and Company must
stop manufacturing rBGH.
Some Background on Eli Lilly
In the fall of 2008, Eli Lilly bought the exclusive rights
to rBGH (marketed as Posilac) from Monsanto. Eli
Lilly is now the worldwide producer of rBGH, which
it manufactures under the subsidiary Elanco Animal
Health.
Also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin, or
rBST, rBGH is injected into cattle to make them lactate
longer and produce more milk. The milk from cows
injected with rBGH contains elevated levels of a protein
that is suspected to increase women’s risk of breast cancer.
rBGH is no stranger to controversy. It was approved by
the FDA after only 90 days of animal testing, and the studies
conducted to obtain approval for rBGH made claims that
are contentious in the scientific community. Newer research
suggests that the protein in rBGH-stimulated milk is linked to
breast cancer. Unfortunately, companies with an investment
in the artificial hormone continue to rely on incomplete and
outdated studies. This puts the onus on consumers to demand
that companies put healthy food before profits.
The health risks associated with rBGH are not limited
to breast cancer. Use of antibiotics in the dairy industry
contributes to the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and
has increased mastitis (bacterial udder infections) in cows by
25 percent. These infections must be treated with antibiotics
and therefore increase the problem of antibiotic resistance in
farm-borne pathogens. These bacteria find their way into our
food, milk, air, soil, and water, and can cause major health
problems for humans.
Eli Lilly Makes Breast Cancer Treatment and
‘Prevention’ Drugs
In addition to the breast cancer–linked rGBH, Eli Lilly
manufactures Gemzar, a drug that is used in the treatment
of metastatic breast cancer. It also manufactures Evista
(raloxifene), a drug that it claims to reduce the risk of breast
cancer in individuals with high risk factors.
continued on page 11
INSIDE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S COLUMN •
Breast Cancer Awareness Month: The Present Looks Like the Past 2
GoodGuide: A Tool to Make Companies Do the Right Thing?
4
Safe Cosmetics = Healthy Cigarettes?
6
2
BCA SOURCE
FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Breast Cancer Awareness Month
The Present Looks Like the Past
By Barbara A. Brenner
L
ongtime readers of this publication know that BCA has long
been critical of Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM)—
both because of the focus on misleading messages about
“early detection” and because of the absence of information
about the environmental links to breast cancer. Of course, the
silence on environmental issues doesn’t surprise anyone who
knows the history of BCAM. That history is being replicated now
in a variety of ways, none of them good for women’s health.
historically produced
herbicides that are
known carcinogens.
“
“
Back in 1995, I wrote my column for the newsletter and
entitled it “Breast Cancer Awareness Month: Now a Word
About the Sponsors.” Briefly, BCAM was created by a
pharmaceutical company
now called AstraZeneca (manufacturer of
Arimidex, and formerly of
tamoxifen). The company,
Breast Cancer Awareness
in addition to making
Month was created by a
drugs to treat breast
pharmaceutical company
cancer, has historically
produced herbicides that
called Astra-Zeneca. The
are known carcinogens.
company, in addition
So it’s no wonder that
environmental issues
to making drugs to
aren’t on the agenda for
treat breast cancer, has
official BCAM messaging.
Of course there’s more
to the profit cycle now,
because as the incidence
of breast cancer has grown,
more companies have seen the wisdom of making drugs for a
growing market. And they don’t seem to see a problem with, at
the same time, making products that might increase the risk of
breast cancer. What better way to make profits than to create
the disease for which you sell the treatments?
We’ve written in The Source before about Novartis, which
makes the aromatase inhibitor Femara and the herbicide
atrazine, which stimulates aromatase production in animals.1
Eli Lilly is also in the game but with an added twist. The
company makes cancer drugs, including Gemzar, which is
used to treat breast cancer. Thanks to a purchase it made
last year from Monsanto, the company now also makes and
markets rBGH through its subsidiary Elanco. This hormone,
used to stimulate milk production in cows, had been linked to
breast cancer and other cancers. To round out its profit circle,
Eli Lilly makes and markets Evista, a drug first approved for
the treatment of osteoporosis that is also marketed to “reduce
the risk of breast cancer in women at high risk of the disease”
(a phrase often confused with the word “prevention”).
If you wanted to make sure that your profits were secure, you
couldn’t do better than to take Eli Lilly’s approach: create
cancer, and create the products to “prevent” and treat the
disease. How perfect.
Except when it comes to the public’s health, that is. Follow the
money, and work with BCA to end the deadly profit cycle. 
1
U.S. EPA recently announced that it will review health data related to
atrazine.
WAYS TO GIVE THAT MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE!
We are fired up about the impact a small organization like Breast Cancer Action can make with only 30,000 members! With
your help, two-thirds of the dairy market is now rBGH-free. Let’s keep the momentum going and demand that Eli Lilly stop producing
the cancer-linked artificial hormone—rBGH. We deserve a world free of harmful toxins.
Instead of purchasing a pink ribbon item this fall, make an impact on breast cancer by donating $25 or $50 or more to Breast Cancer
Action. Together, we will end Eli Lilly’s shameful profit cycle and directly decrease environmental toxins in our food and environment.
Breast Cancer Action carries the voices of people affected by breast cancer to inspire and compel the changes necessary to end the
epidemic. We cannot do this without you. Please make a donation today.
To make a gift, contact development manager Sarah Harding at 415/243.9301, ext. 17, or [email protected].
FALL 2009
3
Making Changes That Matter
A Conversation With Former BCA Board Member Dawn Surratt
This summer Dawn spoke with BCA
intern Alice Price-Styles about her life as
an advocate, her work as a nurse, and her
thoughts on how to sustain involvement
in the causes you care about. Here's what
Dawn had to say.
On BCA
There are so many nonprofit
organizations concerned with
Dawn Surratt
breast cancer in the U.S. BCA really
stood out from the pack. Their work
really challenged the status quo. Their stance was not about
employing pity or sorrow for women who had died of breast
cancer or were living with breast cancer. It was about how do
you take this illness and turn it into something that is more of
a political agenda and more incisive in terms of getting to the
roots of the most common cancer with causes unknown. Also,
the Think Before You Pink® campaigns caught my attention.
They are simple and clever. I think they really help to expand
awareness on issues around environmental injustices and the
links between what we consume and illness and disease. All the
campaigns really drive home the reality that there are businesses,
corporations, manufacturers, even breast cancer organizations
that don’t “walk their talk.” Every October the market floods
with these products that claim to be about raising awareness
and saving women’s lives. In reality, they are more about “how
do I make my company look good” than about doing anything
substantial to end the breast cancer epidemic. So I think
this really clever campaign has shed a bright light on these
shortcomings, and they’ve not been afraid to spotlight some
pretty big players involved in the whole pink frenzy.
55 New Montgomery St.
Suite 323
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415/243-9301
Toll free: 877/2-STOP-BC
Fax: 415/243-3996
[email protected]
www.bcaction.org
On Health Care Reform and Big Pharma
I don’t know if having a single-payer system will come to the
U.S. People will have to get more pissed off. I think people are
pissed off, but they need to get more organized at a federal
level. I think a lot is happening at a local level—there is a
whole lot of drive and energy around getting a single-payer
health care system in place. However, whether that’s going
to be at a federal or national level, I’m not sure. So I think to
the extent that this administration can really overhaul this
system, it’s not just about covering the uninsured. That’s part
of the issue. Roughly one in four or five [are uninsured], but
that’s only a part of the problem. There are people who have
insurance, but the premium is really horrible, or families
with private insurance whose insurance doesn’t cover certain
treatments. What does that mean to cancer patients and
someone’s longevity and level of treatment? Ethically, our
health care system is perverse. The new administration needs
to address these problems. The government needs to take
their cue from those who have had serious illnesses or people
close to them, not insurance companies or drug companies.
I wish I could say that I was hopeful, but I’ve become very
cynical. I know what I want to see, but what can I expect? In
four years? I hope that the new heads at the FDA will be much
more conservative concerning the “fast-tracking” mantras and
off-label use, that people in positions of power will use their
training to say “no” to the pharmaceutical companies.
On Putting Patients First and Social Inequities
One of the things that this recent presidential election did was
to wake up a lot of apathetic voters. So if that level of civic
continued on page 8
BOARD MEMBERS
BCA SOURCE
Claudia Cappio, President
Jane Sprague Zones, Vice President
Adrienne Torf, Treasurer
Vernal Branch, Diane Carr, Lindsey Collins,
Elaine Costello, Tori Freeman, Dorothy Geoghegan,
Lisa James, JoAnn Loulan, Bhavna Shamasunder,
Belle Shayer (emerita), Lee Ann Slinkard
Editor: Angela Wall
Editorial Board: Barbara A. Brenner, Joyce Bichler, Sarah
Harding, Kasha Ho’okili Ho
Copyediting: Robert Gomez
Print Layout: Yvonne Day-Rodriguez, Y. Day Designs
Web Design: Cobalt 2
STAFF
Barbara A. Brenner, Executive Director
Joyce Bichler, Deputy Director
Caitlin Carmody, Office Assistant
Vidita Chopra, Communications Associate
Zoë Christopher, Office Manager
Sarah Harding, Development Manager
Alicia Harris, Program Associate
Amy Harris, Development Director
Kasha Ho’okili Ho, Program Manager
© BCA 2009, ISSN #1933-2408, published quarterly
by BCA. Articles on detection and treatment do not
constitute endorsements but are intended solely to
inform. Call or e-mail for permission before reprinting.
Subscribe to the newsletter online at
www.bcaction.org/source.
“Breast Cancer Action” and the BCA logo are the
registered trademarks of Breast Cancer Action. All
rights reserved. Not to be used without express written
permission.
4
BCA SOURCE
GoodGuide
A Tool to Make Companies Do the Right Thing?
By Angela Wall
A
t Breast Cancer Action, our vision is a world in
which no consumer has to wonder whether the
product she or he is buying contains dangerous
chemicals, no mother has to fear that her children’s
toys are toxic, and no worker has to worry about getting
sick because of her or his job. It’s a world in which all people
are equally protected from exposure to harmful substances,
resulting in fewer cancer cases down the road.
We advocate for more corporate transparency and
accountability as one way to protect ourselves from
exposure to harmful, toxic ingredients in everyday products.
We need to know where our food comes from and whether
it contains genetically modified organisms or was produced
using synthetic hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides.
Government agencies continue to fall short of their
responsibility to protect the public from contamination and
other food safety violations.
Recently, a new online resource tool emerged to help us in
our purchasing decisions and choices. GoodGuide provides
comprehensive information on what products contain and how
they are harmful to our health and our environment. The web site,
www.goodguide.com, is based on a simple premise:
“People have the right to know what they’re putting in, on, and
around their bodies. There are three simple things everyone
should know about their food but don’t: Where did it come from?
How was it made? What’s in it?”
The idea for GoodGuide was developed by Dara O’Rourke, a
professor of environmental and labor policy at the University of
California, Berkeley. His team includes academic and technology
experts, scientists, consumer researchers, technologists, and
industry professionals. Their aim is to “provide the world’s
largest and most reliable source of information on the health,
environmental, and social impacts of the products in your home.”
The service is free, and the company doesn’t endorse, promote, sell,
or derive revenue from any particular brand or product.
So how does GoodGuide work? If you're online, it lets you do the
following:
 Find health, environmental, and social performance ratings
for over 70,000 food, toy, personal care, and household
products—from baby shampoo to bathroom cleaner
 Instantly check products, view ratings, and find safer,
healthier products while you are in a store and on the go
 Create personal favorites lists that are accessible anytime,
anywhere
 Quickly get the information you need before you make
your purchase
You can access information directly from GoodGuide’s web site or
via of the following mobile sources:
 iPhone. Download GoodGuide’s iPhone application
through Apple’s iTunes App Store. It’s free. GoodGuide’s
iPhone application currently provides information about
personal care and household chemical products, but it will
soon be expanding to include food, toys, and electronics.
 Text. Simply send a text message to 41411. Every text
message must begin with the word “gguide” in the body of
the message. Then, add whatever you are searching for after
“gguide.” For example, search by product “gguide shampoo”
or by brand “gguide pantene shampoo.” Or search by bar
code. Send a text to “gguide” followed by a 12-digit UPC
code (these are all of the numbers on a bar code, including
the small numbers at the start and finish).
GoodGuide is a comprehensive database of information on the
performance and impacts of products and companies. However,
it does not cover all environmental, social, or health issues, or all
possible sources of information, so there are gaps. But the system’s
analyses and ratings methods are transparent (www.goodguide.
com/about/methodology) .
GoodGuide could be a striking resource. Knowledge and selective
spending combines to make a powerful tool in this economy. If
we start to use GoodGuide to get companies to act in the right
way, and if the millions of people who have an iPhone and who
send text messages use this program to inform their everyday
purchases, companies will have no choice but to respond. 
The GoodGuide is a Certified B Corporation
(www.bcorporation.net).
FALL 2009
5
Putting Patients First
BCA’s Information and Referral Service
By Mary DeLucco
T
he requests for help flow into the Breast Cancer Action
office at a steady rate. They come as e-mails, letters, and
phone calls to BCA’s Information & Referral service, and
they come looking for the same things: information,
referrals to resources, support. Almost all come from women
who have been diagnosed with breast cancer, or from the people
who love them.
“We get calls from people from all walks of life, all socioeconomic
and educational backgrounds,” says BCA’s Zoë Christopher, who
handles the majority of the inquiries. “Cancer is a great leveler.”
In a typical day she not only answers questions and provides
information but also lends an empathetic ear to women who
pour their hearts out and share their often dire circumstances.
“When I hear the stories, they compel me to find answers,” she
says. “Sometimes it’s painful, but it’s very real. And if there’s any
way to alleviate some of the pain and frustration, or to empower
people to make good choices for themselves, then I’m happy
to help. In a single day, my emotions can run the gamut from
heartbreak and frustration to a sense of triumph and purpose.”
left breast would
have on her heart.
Christopher
contacted radiation
oncologist Mark
Rounsaville, who is
on BCA’s Scientific
Advisory Board. He
responded within
a few hours with
information on the
current best practices
and advice about
the questions the
caller should ask her
oncologist.
Zoë Christopher, BCA's office manager
Christopher says she
wishes those engaged in
the debate on national
health care could hear what she hears. A number of the calls
concern insurance coverage. Many are from women who
have insurance but find their coverage is less than expected or
excludes testing or treatment that’s been recommended. Many
have lost or could never afford coverage in the first place.
The Information & Referral service has been part of BCA’s
outreach since its beginning in 1990. The women who founded
BCA began by posting notices in hospitals, clinics, and other
public areas, inviting women with breast cancer to meetings. The
discussions and presentations at those meetings were reported
in a newsletter, and it was just a matter of time before people
who had read it or heard about it started calling with questions.
As BCA grew and began hiring staff, the original emphasis on
providing information and support continued. Today, the calls,
letters, and e-mails come from all over the world.
“That’s my greatest frustration—when I talk to women who can’t
get the care they need because they don’t have insurance, or
their insurance companies simply won’t cover the costs of their
treatment,” she says. “Particularly, with all of the involuntary
exposure to known carcinogens in our environment, it’s
shameful that anyone is forced to go without quality medical
attention.”
Christopher, who also serves as BCA’s office manager, is
uniquely suited to handling the numerous requests for help. She
came to BCA in February 2007 after spending more than 20
years working in crisis intervention. While earning a master’s
degree in psychology, she co-directed a national referral
program focused on psychiatric crisis and directed a retreat
facility that provided alternatives in psychotherapeutic support.
She considers handling the Information & Referral service a
logical step in a lifetime of striving to empower others.
Christopher related the story of a woman with stage 4 breast
cancer who wrote to BCA recently. In spite of her diagnosis,
the woman moved from her longtime home in New Jersey
to care for her mother in North Carolina, who was suffering
from Alzheimer’s. The woman lost her insurance because of the
move and went on disability. As a result, she didn’t qualify for
additional assistance and could no longer afford the treatment
she needed for her breast cancer. And she continued to care for
her mother.
“We know that knowledge is power, but there is so much
information out there, much of it confusing or conflicting, and
so we try to cut through that,” she says. “Between our staff, our
board of directors, our Scientific Advisory Board, and our
National Advisory Council, we provide accurate and useful
information or refer the caller to someone who can help.”
As an example, Christopher recalled a woman who contacted
her with concerns about the effects radiation applied to her
Christopher explored every avenue, every possibility she and the
BCA staff could think of to find help for her, only to hit a dead
end. Still not ready to give up, she urged the woman to contact
her congressional representatives about her problem and to
testify at congressional hearings on health care in Washington,
D.C. “That was a difficult situation,” Christopher acknowledges.
“Sometimes I have an incorrigibly idealistic attitude that there’s
always an answer out there somewhere.”
continued on page 9
6
BCA SOURCE
Safe Cosmetics = Healthy Cigarettes?
By Hannah Klein Connolly
S
afe cosmetics is somewhat of an oxymoron, like healthy
or “lite” cigarettes, and as unlikely as it may seem, the
cosmetics industry bears a number of similarities to the
cigarette industry. Both are rich industries with highly
guarded trade secrets and profits that exceed $50 billion, both
have strong ties inside the Washington Beltway, and both are
reluctant to reveal what is actually in their products. However,
the danger to our health posed by most cosmetics is perhaps
the most alarming similarity between tobacco and cosmetics.
The lack of transparency regarding the products contained in
most cosmetics leaves consumers misinformed, uninformed,
and very much at risk.
Today’s cosmetics industry is similar to the tobacco industry
before 1965, when Congress passed the Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act and required that all cigarette packets carry a
“damaging to your health” warning label. Synthetic chemicals
and metals are in most of the products in our medicine cabinet,
shower stall, and purse. There are close to 168 chemicals found
in the 12 personal care products that women use each day.1
What Are We Using on Our Body?
Most women don’t know that the list of ingredients in tiny
print on cosmetics packaging is merely what is “intended”2
to go into the product, not actually what goes to market.
For example, the word “fragrance”3 in cosmetic industry
vernacular translates to “trade secret” and could be comprised
of virtually any chemical. In fact, “fragrance” is where you’ll
often find “phthalates” hiding.4
As if the language switch and bait were not bad enough,
the U.S. government’s product watchdog, the Food and
Drug Administration, has no jurisdiction over the cosmetic
industry. According to Jacqueline Houton of Bitch magazine,
“the agency isn’t authorized to approve cosmetic products
or ingredients before they hit the shelves. Manufacturers
are under no legal obligation to register with the FDA, file
data on ingredient safety, or report injuries caused by their
products.”5 The FDA neither reviews nor regulates what goes
into cosmetics. This makes personal care the least regulated
consumer category despite being the fifth-largest such category.
The U.S. government has banned
or restricted 10 chemicals from
cosmetics. The European Union
LEARN MORE
prohibits over 1,100 ingredients.6
In fact, all 15 countries of the
If you’re looking for more
European Union are subject to the
reading on this topic, see
Cosmetic Directive, which bans
Stacy Malkan’s Not Just
not only animal testing but also the
a Pretty Face: The Ugly
use of any chemical known to be or
Side of the Beauty Industry
suspected of being harmful.
(Gabriola, B.C., Canada:
New Society Publishers).
The FDA’s own web site explains its
limitations: “FDA’s legal authority over cosmetics is different
from other products regulated by the agency … Cosmetic
products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket
approval authority, with the exception of color additives.”7 This
means that safety testing is done only by the manufacturer.
Of course, few manufacturers do it. In 30 years, the personal
care industry’s own safety panel has tested only 11 percent of
the products on the market for safety and banned only nine
ingredients as toxic.
When a skin care product is used, it can be absorbed and
stored within the body. Depending on the size of the molecule,
it takes a mere 29 seconds for 0–100 percent of a product
to be absorbed after being applied topically. This constant
absorption, day after day, week after week, month after month,
and year after year, is referred to by chemists as the “chemical
body burden.”9 The question then becomes, how much
absorption is too much?
In 2005, tests were conducted on newborn babies whose
umbilical cord blood contained toxins that ranged from PCN66 (found in dye production) to gamma PHC (insecticides in
agriculture) to Anthracene (used to make preservatives). These
toxins were found in their mother’s body regardless of whether
the mother had ever visited a farm or been around pesticides
or a chemical/manufacturing plant.10 Just as frightening were
the results of the 2005 report conducted by the Oakland
Tribune that discovered a five-year-old who had 90 percent
more dibutyl phthalate than typical for children her age. This
product is found in nail polish, which the child had been
playing with for many months.11
It is unclear how each of these and other toxins are ingested
by food, drink, or topical application. Some chemicals, such as
sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS or SLES), can be created as a result
of chemical reactions when ingredients are combined into one
product, such as shampoo. In the cosmetic industry, this is
called an “unintended by-product.” Other harmful chemicals
may be listed simply as ingredients, such as talc (powders),
mineral oil (makeup remover, lipsticks, and lotions),
formaldehyde (nail polish, shampoo, soaps, skin creams),
fluorocarbons, DEA, SEA, titanium dioxide, and propylene
glycol (suntan lotions, lipsticks, etc.).12 According to a report
issued in 2006 by the California Policy Research Center, in
each state, enough cosmetic chemical compounds are sold
each day to fill two tanker trucks.13
Connecting All the Dots
If a woman applies a lipstick such as L’Oreal True Red, which
contains .65 ppm14 of lead, five times a day, three days a week
for seven years, her body may absorb a significant amount
of lead. Lead can suppress her immune system and damage
cells. Most of us do not know the lethal dose of lead or the
effects of ingesting or inhaling it over a long period of time.
continued on page 7
FALL 2009
7
Safe Cosmetics…
continued from page 6
The cosmetics industry is a lucrative industry. And
when paired with Breast Cancer Awareness, sales
can rocket. If you make a product that contains
a chemical that has been connected to breast
disease, breast cancer “philanthrophy” gives you the
chance to cover your tracks. In 2007, L’Oreal raised
$225,000 for the Komen Foundation to be used
for breast cancer research. The company Zeneca/
ICI manufactures the best-selling breast cancer
drug Arimidex and is the largest official sponsor
of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Zeneca/ICI
also manufactures toxic vinyl chloride, which
can be found in hair sprays and is also linked to
breast cancer.15 All too frequently, large companies
that Breast Cancer Action calls “pinkwashers”
wrap themselves in the pink ribbon crusade
and “support” research for a breast cancer cure
while making products that contribute to this
disease. The pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly is more blatant still. It
manufactures both the controversial artificial milk production
stimulant recombinant bovine growth hormone (rGBH), which
has been linked to breast cancer,16 and Gemzar, a drug used to treat
metastatic breast cancer.
There has been some progress in the fight to require the cosmetics
industry to disclose the harmful chemicals that may be in their
products. As of June 15, 2009, this changed in California when
the California Safe Cosmetic Act of 2005 went into effect despite
$600,000 spent to kill the bill by cosmetic industry lobbyists.
The Safe Cosmetic Act requires a manufacturer, packer, and/
or distributor of cosmetics to produce a list of all cosmetic
products sold in California that contain any ingredients known
or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive
harm. Consumers can find this information in the coming months
on the California Public Health database.17 If companies comply,
consumers will be able to make more educated decisions when
purchasing cosmetics in California.
know that accountability is needed. Unsafe ingredients should
be banned. Most global companies have formulations sold in
Europe that exclude known or suspected toxins, so there is no
cost to reformulate. It can be done.
 Think Before You Pink,® and stop the profit cycle. It starts and
ends with you. 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
What Can You Do?
There are practical measures at your disposal:
 Take a look, for instance, at the safe cosmetics database, or in a
few months at the California Public Health database.18
 Clean out your purse, your showers, and medicine cabinets.
Toss the cosmetics found to be harmful in the Skin Deep
database, and find nontoxic alternatives online at
www.cosmeticsdatabase.com.
 Opt for European products when you can find and/or afford
them. Finally, be aware of marketing tools such as product
labels that declare something to be “organic” and “natural.”
There are apparently no legal standards for such marketing
verbiage.19
 Help to change laws that protect you and your family from
harmful chemicals. Each one of us can be an activist and let our
government, large manufacturing companies, and local stores
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Stacy Malkan, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry,
Gabriola, B.C., Canada: New Society Publishers, p.2.
Abby Ellin,“Skin Deep a Simple Smooch or a Toxic Smack?” New York Times, May 28,
2009. Online at www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/fashion/28skin.html
Online at www.nottoopretty.org/article.php?id=222
In Europe, two phthalates, DEHP and DBP, have already been banned.
Additionally, the European Union has banned 1,132 known or suspected
carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxins from use in cosmetics, but only
10 such chemicals are banned in the United States, leaving us with mercury in
mascara, petrochemicals in perfumes, and parabens in antiperspirants.
Bitch magazine, Jacqueline Houton, December 16, 2008.
Online at www.ewg.org/node/27462
Online at www.colipa.eu/
Online at www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductandIngredientSafety/
ProductInformation/ucm137224.hm
Online at www.cir-safety.org/staff_files/unsafe.pdf
Online at www.chemicalbodyburden.org/whatisbb.htm
The Body Burden report. Online at www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/
contentindex.php
Online at www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_3299744?IADID=Search-www.
insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com
Online at www.hallgold.com/toxic-chemical-ingredients-directory.htm
Online at www.noharm.org/us/chemicalpolicy/issue
Abby Ellin, “Skin Deep: A Simple Smooch or a Toxic Smack?” New York Times,
May 28, 2009. Online at www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/fashion/28skin.html
Online at www.preventcancer.com/avoidable/breast_cancer/env_causes.htm.
Online at www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm
Online at www.safecosmeticsact.org/SafeCosmetics/
Online at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/splash.php?URI=%2Findex.php
Natasha Singer, “Skin Deep: Natural, Organic Beauty,” New York Times, November
1, 2007.
8
BCA SOURCE
GENE PATENT CHALLENGE MOVES FORWARD SLOWLY
The challenge to Myriad’s patents on the breast cancer genes is
moving forward in court—slowly. In July, the defendants in the
case—the folks who want the patents to stay just the way they
are—moved to dismiss the lawsuit. They argued that none of the
plaintiffs (including BCA) have sufficient connection to the patent
issues to bring their case to court.
The defendants’ action was expected by the ACLU lawyers
handing the case. In response, they and the Public Patent
Foundation filed a request that the court issue a ruling that
the patents are unconstitutional and invalid. This request is
supported by friend of the court briefs from, among others,
the American Medical Association, the March of Dimes, the
American Society for Human Genetics, the National Women’s
Health Network, Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice,
and Generations Ahead.
Stay tuned to www.bcation.org for updates on the case.
Dawn Surratt…
and what is in a person’s environment.
continued from page 3
Studies are constantly showing up the gaps in breast cancer diagnosis
and breast cancer survival rates between different races and classes
of women.
participation can be sustained and that kind of energy can transfer
over to the realm of health care, that would be an amazing thing.
Regarding breast cancer specifically, I think people need be less lulled
by the whole pink ribbon madness. People talk about breast cancer
and raising awareness, which is like running fingernails down a
chalkboard for me. Awareness is not the issue anymore; the issue is
about who gets treatment. What kind of treatment do they get? What
groups of people get treatment? What’s the quality of the treatment?
Who lives with this disease? Who dies?
More white women are diagnosed with breast cancer, but in terms of
outcomes, if you look at who dies sooner, you are looking at women
of color and women who are poor. It has to be a broader discussion.
It has more to do with social injustices.
BCA’s stance is not about employing pity or sorrow for women who
have died of breast cancer or are living with breast cancer. Rather,
BCA puts women in the driving seat when it comes to self-advocacy.
Their campaigns show people, women in particular, that our bodies
are not just things that have things done to them. We can have a say,
a big say, in what gets done.
BCA enables ordinary people to get to get in and have their say. For
example, recently Breast Cancer Action did a survey on the effects
of aromatase inhibitors. For some women these drugs work, but for
a lot of others, the side effects are horrible and not worth it. People
being prescribed these treatments need to be able to access this kind
of information. A scientific advisory board refers information back
to the staff. The sheer amount of information is overwhelming—new
research findings, conferences, information that needs to be acted
on. BCA has taken on the role to be the watchdog of the breast cancer
movement. It’s about helping women get to a place where they have
a collective voice that gets heard. A collective voice is more powerful
than an individual voice. One of the things I’ve heard a number of
survivors say is, it’s hard to be your own medical advocate. One of the
most important roles you can have for people living with cancer is as a
personal advocate. Putting together a team is important. I feel like BCA
acts as that advocate; they assume the role as part of that team.
The entire “who lives and who dies” issue is not going to be addressed
until we approach some other issues about who lives where, what
kinds of foods do they have access to, etc. There is so much emphasis
on individuals’ behavior without making the link between choices
On Sustained Involvement?
I was born in 1964, the year of the Civil Rights Act, and there were
things that I saw that made me very aware of racism. I know what it
was like for my mother. I was not the first black girl at my school. My
mother was the first black girl to go to her high school in Texas, and
so the kinds of things she encountered I did not have to. I worked
in Africa. That was a really humbling thing, in terms of the degree of
suffering that I saw. I witnessed absolutely preventable deaths caused
by poor nutrition and a lack of access to clean water and anti-malaria
drugs and vaccines. These were early and untimely and unnecessary
deaths. I befriended some nursing students while I was there, they
would tell me about their experiences in the maternity wards. As
a nursing student in the U.S. or U.K. or Canada, it is rare to see
someone die in childbirth. It happens, but it’s not commonplace. It
is just the flip in a lot of African countries—to see a woman bleeding
to death, and there is nothing you can do because you don’t have the
right drugs. She was too anemic when she came in the first place, and
all you can do is watch this woman bleed to death. This is something
these nurses witness routinely and experience throughout their work.
Breast Cancer Action has taken the experience of breast cancer and
said, “This doesn’t need to be as bad as it is.”
You ask how I stop becoming disheartened. A good friend of mine
who is an activist in Austin told me she would often say, “Those
of us in positions of privilege cannot afford to be disheartened.” If
these young nurses cannot be disheartened knowing what they are
stepping into, then, well…
There were many days that I would cry listening to stories in the
clinic, but you see what your colleagues deal with day in, day out. I
have respect for what these people are trying to achieve with very few
resources, not just in terms of money, but human resources. Things
change because of people like that. BCA operates on a shoestring
budget. Yet they achieve so much. They make changes that matter.
What sustains me? Knowing history, knowing fully that people who
made really radical change happen did so with far fewer resources
than us. They didn’t have the Internet. If they were able to make
things happen, then we can, too. 
FALL 2009
9
A Paraben-Free Cosmetic
Committed to Women’s Health
N
early 20 years ago, BCA started asking the tough
questions about toxic exposures and environmental
links to breast cancer. We were the first organization to
identify parabens (a chemical preservative commonly
used in cosmetics and body care
products) as a source of concern for
breast cancer. Our Think Before You
Pink® campaign targets the
pinkwashing manufacturers of
products such as cosmetics and dairy,
and demands the discontinuation of
their use of harmful estrogenic
ingredients.
paraben-free exfoliate foaming cleanser and sensitive cleansing
bar will be donated to BCA. You can support BCA in this
unique way by purchasing these products from your local
retailer or by ordering online at www.sukipure.com. 
Breast Cancer Action is proud to
partner with Suki, Inc., because it is
committed to women’s health. For the
months of October and November,
all proceeds from the sale of Suki’s
=
ALERTS BY E-MAIL
Want up-to-the-minute news, notices, and action alerts on breast cancer? Sign up for BCA’s monthly e-alert!
The e-alerts will notify you when the newest issue of our quarterly publication, The Source, has been posted online.
Contact us at 877/2-STOP-BC or sign up online at www.bcaction.org.
www.bcaction.org/ealert
continued from page 5
Not surprisingly, any time breast cancer is in the news, which is often, the
number of calls and e-mails spikes. When a study was presented at the
American Society of Clinical Oncology’s annual meeting last May regarding
the effect certain antidepressants might have on tamoxifen’s ability to reduce
the risk of a recurrence of breast cancer, calls and e-mails poured in. And
Christopher was there, doing her best to provide answers.
“As we always do, we urged the callers to do research. We suggested web sites,
publications, and other resources that might be helpful, and we stressed the
need for them to talk openly with their doctors,” she said. “And if they weren’t
comfortable asking questions and challenging assumptions, we suggested they
find an oncologist they were comfortable with. We didn’t give medical advice,
but we gave them the information they needed to make informed choices
about their treatment.” 
“
When I hear the stories, they compel
me to find answers. Sometimes
it’s painful, but it’s very real. And if
there’s any way to alleviate some
of the pain and frustration, or to
empower people to make good
choices for themselves, then I’m
happy to help. In a single day, my
emotions can run the gamut from
heartbreak and frustration to a sense
of triumph and purpose.
“
Putting Patients First…
10
BCA SOURCE
Thanks
BCA extends a special thank you to those who have provided recent assistance to BCA.

Lisabeth Castro-Smyth, Amy Harris, Barbara Brenner, and
Rebecca Farmer for choosing BCA as the beneficiary of their
birthday wishes on Facebook.

Lois Pickett for her outstanding attention to detail while
volunteering her time.

Marilyn Zivian, Gail Kaufman, and Barbra Weiner for
volunteering their time as volunteer fundraising solicitors.

Mary McCann for her time and assistance in planning a BCA
presentation in her workplace.

Ali Roth and all the bands who participated in the punk rock
show benefiting BCA.

Mary DeLucco for all her work to date with BCA and the time
she spent interviewing Zoë Christopher.

Robert Gomez for generously volunteering his fabulous
copyediting and proofreading skills.

Alan Kleinschmidt of the SF Choral Society for performance
tickets for the board, staff, and volunteers.
 Tori
Freeman for choosing BCA as the beneficiary of her
“12 Hot Dates, 1 Fun Night” event, and to everyone who
volunteered their time and gave an in-kind donation.


Carol Fong and Caren Cummins for volunteering their
ongoing assistance in the BCA office.
All who participated in making the ArtHaus Think Before You
Pink® opening reception successful:
Gallerists: James Bacchi and Annette Schutz.
Artists: Torrie Groening, Mustafa Onder, Andrea Arroyo,
Paul Gibson, Nancy Otto, Pam Dernham, Adam Kurtzman,
Felipe Galindo, Carol Massa, Jan Blythe, Kenney Mencher,
Carole Austin, Paule Dubois Dupuis. Katrina at
Frey Organic Wines.
Invitation Design: Tyson at Knack Design.
Printing of Signage: Speedway Printing.
Bartender: Todd at Baytenders.com.

Howie Slater of H. Slater West, Inc. for the Milking Cancer
buttons.

Our fabulous fall interns, Suzanne Meredith, Sierra Harris,
Michelle McGinley.

Our fabulous summer interns, Kimberly Bormann, Antoinette
Lim, Suzanne Meredith, and Alice Price-Styles.

Rebecca Elson, publisher of The Magical Buffet, for her
annual tribute to Think Before You Pink.

Sandra Beaudin for volunteering her information architect
skills in the redesign of www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org.

Robin Beck for volunteer assistance with Milking Cancer
online advocacy campaign.

Pauli Ojea for Think Before You Pink® campaign assistance.

Andy Rivera for his assistance with the annual report.

Claudia Cappio for hosting the National Board Retreat kickoff in her home.

Suki, Inc. for choosing BCA as the beneficiary for 100 percent
of the proceeds from the sale of its paraben-free products:
exfoliate foaming cleanser and sensitive cleansing bar, for
the months of October and November.

Leslie Greene for choosing BCA as the beneficiary for 100
percent of the proceeds from the sale of its rose plated
heart charm with pink tourmaline, for the months of October,
November, and December.

W3ll for choosing BCA as the beneficiary for 100 percent of
the proceeds from the sale of its paraben-free pink Nudist
No. 4 Supernatural Lipshine, for the months of October and
November.

Image Skincare for choosing BCA as the beneficiary of
5 percent of the proceeds from the sale of its paraben-free
OrMedic Balancing Anti-Oxidant Serum, for the month of
October.
For a list of BCA’s business supporters or to learn more about how you can support BCA,
visit www.bcaction.org/BusinessSupport.
FALL 2009
Milking Cancer…
continued from page 1
In 2005 Eli Lilly was fined $36 million for illegally promoting Evista
to doctors as a breast cancer preventative treatment, though the
drug was not then approved for this use. As its efforts to promote
Evista demonstrate, Eli Lilly is prepared to go above and beyond
regulations to wring profits out of its products.
Essentially, Eli Lilly is milking the breast cancer market for all it’s
worth. It offers women the options of “preventative” medication
as well as treatment drugs to combat a problem it perpetuates by
tainting the U.S. dairy supply with a potentially cancer-causing
hormone. This perfect profit circle makes a lot of money for the
pharmaceutical giant.
Eli Lilly claims that it is “rooted in a culture that values honesty
and caring for [its] community,” but it risks consumers’ health by
manufacturing and marketing rBGH. The continued production
of an unnecessary artificial stimulant that is linked to breast cancer
flies in the face of a self-proclaimed Eli Lilly core value. Unless, of
course, such a value is just a public relations tactic.
BCA’s Position on rBGH and Eli Lilly
Breast Cancer Action supports a standard of regulation known
as the precautionary principle, which states that when a product
raises threats of serious or irreversible harm to human health
or the environment, it should be banned, even if the cause-andeffect relationship of the potential harm is not fully established.
Breast Cancer Action believes that chemicals or additives should
be proven safe before they are allowed into the marketplace. We
should not wait until a product is proven to be toxic and has been
on the market long enough for damage to become evident before
banning it. Concern over the health effects of rBGH has caused it
to be banned in Australia, Canada, Japan, and all 27 countries of
the European Union. We consider this, along with the studies that
question its health safety, to be evidence enough.
11
Many U.S. companies choose to provide rBGH-free milk because
of consumer concern over the potential harm it poses, including
large corporations like Kroger, Starbucks, and Wal-Mart. Regulatory
agencies in other countries and private companies in the United
States acknowledge the risk of rBGH-stimulated milk, but Eli Lilly
continues to produce this cancer-linked hormone.
Those who do not have access to alternative sources of dairy
products are forced to be a part of Lilly’s profit cycle. This includes
our children. Many public schools are forced to purchase rBGH
dairy—food contracts simply don’t include an rBGH-free dairy
option. But Americans who can afford organic foods can buy rBGHfree dairy. Across the US, families are rejecting rBGH tainted milk.
Yet Eli Lilly continues to manufacture it. Again, is this really the way
a company behaves when it is truly “rooted in a culture that values
honesty and caring for [their] community”? It seems to us that this
is the behavior of a company out to make as much money as it can,
regardless of the consequences to the global community’s health.
Join Us, Take Action Now
BCA encourages everyone to join us in asking Eli Lilly to stop
milking cancer. BCA has already sent a letter to Eli Lilly, calling for
an end to its shameless breast cancer profit cycle by stopping the
production of rBGH. Now we are asking you to do the same. Visit
www.milkingcancer.org to learn more about Eli Lilly’s harmful profit
cycle. Join with us to fight Eli Lilly’s greed for profit at the expense
of your health by sending a letter to the company demanding it stop
milking cancer.
Help us put pressure on Eli Lilly by mailing or e-mailing to ask
the company to stop manufacturing this chemical. For further
information on how to accomplish this and other ways to support
the “Eli Lilly: Milking Cancer” campaign, please visit our web site,
www.milkingcancer.org. We at BCA cannot stress enough how
important supporter participation is to our campaign work—your
contribution really can make a difference to inspire change with
BCA. Together, we can achieve an rBGH-free world. 
Kimberly Bormann and Alice Price-Styles are student interns who
worked at BCA in 2009.
KEEPING TRACK OF DOXIL
By Vernal Branch
When the Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC) voted
in July to overwhelmingly advise against approval of Doxil for
metastatic breast cancer, that wasn’t the end of the story.
The ODAC makes recommendations to the commissioner of the
Food and Drug Administration, who has the final decision about
whether to approve this use for the drug. While it unusual for the
commissioner to reject an ODAC recommendation, especially
when most of the ODAC members are of the same opinion, it’s
not completely unheard of.
The entire process of approval or rejection can take from six to
10 months and will result in either a new label for the drug—
allowing its use in metastatic breast cancer—or a detailed letter
to Ortho Biotech about what the company would need to do
before it could bring the issue of approval back to the FDA. If
such a letter is issued, the only way to get a copy is to ask the
company for it. The FDA cannot release it.
If approval is denied, Ortho Biotech can appeal that decision
internally at the FDA. The appeal procedure is not public.
BCA is continuing to follow the Doxil story, and we are in touch
with Ortho Biotech about its next steps with the drug.
12
BCA SOURCE
DONATIONS IN MEMORY
BCA gratefully acknowledges donations made in memory of the following individuals between May 23, 2009, and October 1, 2009.
Joyce Ambrosini
from Elaine A. Lissner
Pat Anesi
from Lauri E. Fried-Lee
Valerie Ann
from Brenda Eckles
Judi Bart
from Helen Vozenilek
Alma Bornstein Ohly
from Barbara B. and
Joseph Blumenthal
Joanne Cochrane
from Anonymous
Joseph H. Godfrey
from Sally Myers
Margaret Gunther
from Meighen Speiser
Renata Guzman
from Ray Guzman
Dr. Shyamala Harris
from Joan Hamilton
Earlene Helvey
from Carol Schlanger
Nancy Hill
from Anonymous
Janice, Who Would Have
Turned 49
from Anna Saenz
Jerry
from Peggy Kroutil
Joan
from Marie Arboit-Ainbinder
from Judith Glinder
Tammy Johnson
from Anonymous
Helene Keyssar
from J. Redwing Keyssar
Sandy King
from David and Joan Uhlfelder
Chris Kitchel
from Anonymous
Marla Lamb
from Linda and Curtis Boles
Daphne Laurance
from Anonymous
Norma Litman
from Laurie Litman
and Dale Steele
Mary Ann Manning
from Anonymous
Deb Mosley
from Tina Connelly
Rebecca Nataloni, Our Daughter
from Frances and John Nataloni
Tanya Neiman
from Dale Kern
Agnes Norsigian
from Judith Norsigian
George Nussrallah
from Rebecca Abbott
Terrence L. O’Brien
from JoAnn O’Brien
Jan Platner
from Barbara Dickey
and Donna Ryu
Chris Pomery’s Mom
from Julie Rose Cowan
and Neil Good
Rose Giannini Quinn
from Joy and Ron Headington
from Rodney Headington
from Anne-Marie Jones
from Irene Pierce
from Rena Weinert
and The Weinert Family Trust
from Tonia Wolf
Ann McAllister
from Donna Brogan
BCA ANNUAL SUMMARY IS AVAILABLE
Breast Cancer Action’s 2008 annual summary is now available to either read online or
download and print. The annual summary highlights BCA's programs and campaigns
in 2008, and honors the many individuals and organizations that support our work.
Together, we continue to confront the challenges. Together, we will end this epidemic.
If you would like a print copy mailed to you, please contact us toll-free at 877/2-STOP-BC,
or e-mail [email protected]
Bessie Rogerson
from Angela Wall
and Frances Elizabeth Wall
Marilyn Sauter
from Joyce and Robert Sauter
My Mother, Miriam Shapiro
from Dianne and Nelson Shapiro
Lucy Sherak
from Ken Fischer
and Carlyn M. Montes De Oca
from Hannah and Don Sherak
Pat Singer
from Cathy R. Kornblith
Pamela Smith
from Arthur and Kathy McKenney
J.J. (Jenifer Jo) Stickney
from Sandra and Peter Andrews
Jackie Winnow
from Helen Vozenilek
FALL 2009
13
DONATIONS IN HONOR
BCA gratefully acknowledges donations made in honor of the following individuals between May 23, 2009, and October 1, 2009.
A Friend Newly Diagnosed
from Leah Kaizer and David Salk
All Breast Cancer Survivors
from Sandra and Mel Toponce
All My Friends Suffering From
Cancer, As Well As Those Who
Have Passed On
from Anonymous
All Survivors
from Michele Mason
All Women
from Christina Campbell
All Women and Men Dealing
With This Disease
from Ana T. Garcia
All Women Who Choose to
Heal Themselves Without Harm,
Including Myself
from Elizabeth Bonfig
Another Year of Living!
from Mary Felton
Elizabeth Apfelberg for Her
70th Birthday
from Elizabeth Apfelberg
from Sid Clayman
from Jerome and Elaine Kassel
from Hilda and Stan Miller
from Fredrick and
Dorothy Muckinhaupt
from Wendy P. Robinson
from Janis K. Woolpert
Patricia Arango
from Patricia Cosmos Arango
and Robert Arango
Jan Avery
from Eleanor Barrett
Lyn Backe
from Quinton Hallett
Jennifer Bevilacqua
from Janette Long
Devin Boerm
from Paulee Lipsman
Judy Brady
from Jean Pauline
Breast Cancer Action and All
You Do for Us
from Doral Hurd
Breast Friends for Life
from Florie and Joseph Adiutori
Barbara Brenner
from Julie Blankenship
from Ruth Herman
from Leonie and Glen Janken
from Linda Wardlaw
from Harriet and Sheldon Wolpoff
Barbara Brenner
and Susie Lampert
from Tom Reilly
Ramsay Breslin
from Jennifer Hammond
Denise Bullwinkle
from Diana and Dan Bergeson
Katanya Henry
from Ann N. Henry
from Cathy R. Kornblith
Jeanne Hunter
from Stark and Jeanne Hunter
Nancy Hutchins
from JoAnne Gretta Mann
Lisa James
from Amy L. Harris
Mr. and Mrs. Harold Jones for
Their 60th Wedding Anniversary
from Beverly D. Robbins
On Behalf of Humans
from Letitia Noel
Jeanne Peterson
from Megan Swoboda
Jan Rees
from Dora C. Weaver
San Francisco General Hospital’s
Breast Cancer Patients
from Blue Walcer and Lynn Fonfa
Annette Schultz
from Tyson Ferland
Julie
from Jennifer Bailer
Alan Seeherman
from Ellen Seeherman
and Stuart Sloame
Cheri Kattenhenry
from Cheryl Stevens
Lisa Staprans
from Annaly Bennett
Donna Cervelli
from Amalia Modena
Kendra Klein
from Nancy and Roger Klein
Matt Coles
from the Gill Foundation
Nadine Kramer
from Merila Kramer
Supporters and Workers of BCA
from Sue Milham
and Robert Sutton
May Elinson’s 90th Birthday
from Eileen Goldman
and Robert Gabriner
Lisa Layne
from Quinton Hallett
Lisabeth Castro-Smyth for Her
Birthday
from Katherine and John Duffy
from Rona Henry
Ellen
from Anonymous
Everyone Who Is or Will Be
Affected, Ever
from Heather Braley
Rebecca Farmer for Her
Birthday
from Elaine Elinson
Carolyn Finis Perez
from June R. Finis
Sonia Flores
from Varya Simpson
Bathsheba Freedman
from Myra and Peter Shostak
Deena Glass
from Ellie Waxman
and Joanne Yeaton
Jessea Greenman
from Anonymous
Tara Guilford
from JoAnne Gretta Mann
Kit Lee
from Deborah and Peter Behrakis
Teresa Leger de Fernandez
from Michelle Mercer
and Bruce Golden
Donna Lentz
from Jane Hawkins
Charlotte Lewis on Her Birthday
from Margo L. Arcanin
The Annie Appleseed Project
from Ann Fonfa
The Women Who Have Gone
Before Me
from Linda Morgenstern
Think Before You Pink
from Anonymous
Those Living With BC
from Ellen Moskowitz
Tonya
from Jennifer Bailer
Rose Wachter
from Judith Lujan
JoAnn Loulan
from Diana and Dan Bergeson
from Gardner Loulan
Amy Washburn
from Gardner Loulan
Jene Martucci
from Janice Avery
Beth Washburn
from Gardner Loulan
Jane B. Matz
from Simona Angela Ghirlanda
Your Commitment to Solving the
Problem
from Anonymous
Nicci Meagher
from Breda McBride
Ruth Mortenson
from Aline Pereira
Mary Harms
from Kathleen and Ralph Harms
My Breast Cancer Sweeties:
Jean, Carrie, Eileen, Barrie,
Leah, Sarah
from Margo Perin
Amy Harris
from Mariana Breuer
Muggins
from Holly McGuiness
Maggie Woodward
from Breda McBride
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
San Francisco, CA
Permit No. 2500
55 New Montgomery St., Suite 323
Return Service
Requested
San Francisco, California 94105
INSIDE
A WHOLE NEW
LEVEL OF
PINKWASHING:
ELI LILLY IS MILKING
CANCER . . . . . PAGE 1
BREAST CANCER ACTION
WHAT DOES BCA DO?
As the watchdog of the breast cancer movement, we encourage
our members to ask tough questions and to understand the
connection between personal changes and the social changes
necessary to end the breast cancer epidemic.
We advocate for policy changes in three priority areas:
 Putting Patients First: Demanding more effective, less toxic
treatments by shifting the balance of power at the FDA away from
the pharmaceutical industry and toward the public interest.
 Creating Healthy Environments: Working to decrease involuntary
environmental exposures that put people at risk for breast cancer.
 Eliminating Social Inequities: Creating awareness that it is not
just genes, but social injustices—political, economic, and racial
inequities—that lead to differences in breast cancer incidence
and outcomes.
We provide information to anyone who needs it via newsletters, web
sites, e-alerts, and a toll-free number.
We organize people to do something besides worry. BCA sifts
through the stacks of misinformation that now circulate about
breast cancer. What you won’t learn in the newspaper or on
television—or sometimes even from your doctor—is in our
highly acclaimed publication, The Source.
MISSION STATEMENT
Breast Cancer Action carries the voices of people
affected by breast cancer to inspire and compel the changes
necessary to end the breast cancer epidemic.
CORE PRINCIPLES AND VALUES
 We are a membership-based organization that values the
involvement of grassroots activists throughout the country
and around the world to further our mission.
 We honor each person’s commitment and energy to our mission.
 We are not afraid to examine all sides of all issues.
 We cannot be bought.
 We tell the truth about what we discover.
 We serve individuals while reaching the broader population.
 We address the significance of environmental links to
human health.
 We encourage people to participate fully in decisions relating
to breast cancer.
 We believe access to information is vital.
 We work for structural changes toward social justice to
accomplish our mission.
BREAST CANCER ACTION —
CHALLENGING ASSUMPTIONS. INSPIRING CHANGE.