Now that the thirty-one days of Pinktober have passed, I
feel safe enough to vent a bit of frustration with the whole breast cancer awareness
movement.
Don’t get me wrong—I recognize that fund-raising is a necessary
underpinning of medical research, and I appreciate societal commitments to eradicating disease. It’s just that I’m not sure there’s anyone in America who is unaware of breast cancer, and it seems that more and more companies are skipping the altruism part and going pink strictly for profit.
Despite the tidal wave of pinktastic merchandise that floods October to amp up awareness, breast cancer
continues to be diagnosed and, more disturbingly, to claim lives.
Current research suggests that the emphasis on early
detection has backfired, leading many women through unnecessary
treatments for cancers that were never going to become invasive. However, the body of medicine remains confounded
on how to predict and prevent metastatic breast cancer.
Even
with the latest advances in treatment options, doctors are still unable to predict
with certainty which of their patients will achieve long-term survival and
which will suffer metastatic recurrence. A radiologist once summed it up to me this way: Breast cancer is sneaky.
I hate to be a skeptic, but cancer is big business. From medical
imaging to genetic testing, from cutting-edge surgical techniques to comprehensive
oncology clinics, the quest for an ever-elusive “cure” is a money-maker that keeps
medical industries booming.
I'm not sure there's a drug company out there that's truly interested in finding a cure. Drug companies are financially motivated to find marketable treatments for cancer, but curing it? That would be a fiscal disaster.
Frankly, I'd rather see cancer stopped before it starts. I'd like for my daughter to grow up without worrying about whether or not she'll get breast cancer. Maybe instead of going down the rabbit hole in
search of a cure, research should be focused on ferreting out and proving methods of prevention.
It's widely known that a variety of environmental influences can alter DNA,
resulting in the development of cancer even in the absence of a genetic
tendency. The standard American diet has been implicated as an
emerging risk factor for breast and other cancers. Long on shelf life and short
on nutrients, it packs a potent punch of endocrine-disruptive chemicals that
wreak havoc in the body.
Every day, we ingest an astounding dose of
estrogen-mimicking chemicals, unnecessary antibiotics, and extraneous hormones
through the very foods they eat. Milk and meat from cows treated with bovine
growth hormones. Soup from cans laced with BPA. Fruits and vegetables sprayed
with pesticides and wax.
Sugar, a favorite additive of the food industry, has long
been known to feed cancer cells. High fructose corn syrup, a staple ingredient
on packaged food labels, is frequently sourced from genetically modified corn,
which has been linked to increased rates of cancer in rats.
If the foods consumed by Americans activate cancer, doesn’t
it stand to reason that changes in dietary practices could short circuit it
completely? Wouldn’t it be prudent to thoroughly investigate this angle, to
invest in research that harnesses the power of the fuel we put into our bodies
to fight this illness?
I’m tired of pink ribbons and awareness and pinning a future
on hope. I’m tired of hearing about the latest treatment options, each with its
own set of debilitating side effects. I’m tired of fund-raising for a cure.
It’s time to stop putting business before health. It’s time
to reassess our priorities, to focus our efforts on mitigating the
environmental factors that promote the proliferation of cellular changes that
create cancer.
The proverbial ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of cure.