From Pink to Prevention Campaign Update

From Pink to Prevention Campaign Update

Dear friends, colleagues and supporters,

As we continue our effort to ask The Big Question on environmental and occupational links to breast cancer, here are some links to our latest blogs and campaign updates.
MEETING WITH BREAST CANCER NOW

Earlier this month, Helen Lynn and Deborah Burton met with key Breast Cancer Now  staff – Delyth Morgan (chief Executive) and Eluned Hughes (Head of Public Health and Information) to primarily discuss the reasons why their organisation (the UK’s leading breast cancer charity) persists in categorising environmental risks as doubtful along with the body of evidence that does link the two. We also wanted to ask if and when BCN could join with us and start to both accept and act upon the existing evidence (not least, share the information with the public who look to them for guidance). It was a constructive first conversation and we are looking forward to keeping the issue on their agenda.

Our latest blog about the meeting is here and our post-meeting follow up letter in full is here. Continue reading

‘Pink’ Breast Cancer Month: Asking a Big Question that demands an answer

‘Pink’ Breast Cancer Month: Asking a Big Question that demands an answer

Dear Friends,

pink blindfoldIn this October Breast Cancer Awareness Month, our campaign ‘From Pink to Prevention’ is trying to raise the level of debate about the much marginalised issue of environmental and occupational links to the disease. Sixteen campaigning organisations from England, Scotland, Germany, USA, Australia, Philippines, and several pan-EU networks have signed on to our statement which asks why, despite all the money raised, more and more of us are getting this disease?

In particular, we want to know why the breast cancer charities continue to focus solely on ‘lifestyle’ risk factors such as diet and exercise, while ignoring the potential 60% of breast cancer cases for which they have no explanation.  What about the role of chemical, environmental and occupational exposures in this?

We argue that better diagnostics and treatment are  not mutually exclusive with looking at how our profoundly polluted environment, homes and workplaces impact on our bodies and health – and we need action on this, if we are to heed  the ‘precautionary principle’ .
Continue reading

From Pink to Prevention – asking Big Questions about Breast Cancer

From Pink to Prevention – asking Big Questions about Breast Cancer

Dear friends, supporters, colleagues,

From Pink to Prevention –a new campaign

Save the Date for our first campaign meeting on Tuesday 27th January 6.30pm – more details at end of page

Big QuestionWelcome to our new campaign: From Pink to Prevention. We want to:-

  • put the questions out there about environmental and occupational links to breast cancer.
  • offer up some answers as to WHY primary prevention is persistently ignored.
  • make the barriers to primary prevention widely known.
  • focus on the vested interests barrier and share that information with the public, media, sister campaign groups, politicians and policy-makers.
  • identify some key ‘vested interests’ and view their real and potential impact on breast cancer policy, from government through to cancer establishment.
  • provide readily accessible and thoroughly referenced information for the general public.
  • offer simple but innovative actions that can be taken to bring about positive change.

Continue reading

Media Release – From Pink to Prevention

A new campaign on breast cancer: environment, occupation & obstacles to getting both of these risk factors taken seriously in the breast cancer debate

Big QuestionFROM PINK to PREVENTION is a new breast cancer campaign that exposes the barriers to achieving ‘primary prevention’ – stopping the disease before it starts. Central to our campaign is one big fundamental question we seek to put to all those individuals, organisations and institutions with the power to make or to influence decisions affecting public and occupational health in general and breast cancer incidence in particular.
Continue reading

October Reading List

  1. A Trillion Ways To Build a New Military Industrial Complex
  2. The Military Takes on Climate Change Deniers
  3. Amazon Must Be Stopped
  4. Japan’s Decision on Collective Self-Defense in Context
  5. Far-Right Birther’s Secret Funders
  6. Pinkwashing: Fracking Company Teams Up With Susan G. Komen to ‘End Breast Cancer Forever’
  7. Cut benefits? Yes, let’s start with our £85bn corporate welfare handout
  8. US firms could make billions from UK via secret tribunals
  9. Germany Can’t Manage Its Weapons
  10. Warmongering Hebrew University tries to muzzle Palestinian students
  11. Richest 1% of people own nearly half of global wealth, says report
  12. UK to allow fracking companies to use ‘any substance’ under homes 
  13. This One $486 Million Blunder In Afghanistan Sums Up The Disaster Of Military Spending
  14. The US and a Crumbling Levant
  15. Only 12% of drone victims in Pakistan identified as militants: report
  16. Does Rising Inequality Make a Democracy More Warlike?
  17. European banks and the global banking glut
  18. With US-led air strikes on Isis intensifying, it’s a good time to be an arms giant like Lockheed Martin
  19. Organised Hypocrisy on a Monumental Scale
  20. NASA Confirms A 2,500-Square-Mile Cloud Of Methane Floating Over US Southwest
  21. Netanyahu’s Not Chickenshit, the White House Is

Continue reading

Abolishing Mammography Screening Programs?

Nikola Biller-Andorno, M.D., Ph.D., and Peter Jüni, M.D., “Abolishing Mammography Screening Programs? A View from the Swiss Medical Board,” 23 April 2014, The New England Journal of Medicine

DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1401875

… The Swiss Medical Board’s report was made public on February 2, 2014 (www.medical-board.ch). It acknowledged that systematic mammography screening might prevent about one death attributed to breast cancer for every 1000 women screened, even though there was no evidence to suggest that overall mortality was affected. At the same time, it emphasized the harm — in particular, false positive test results and the risk of overdiagnosis. For every breast-cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year course of annual screening beginning at 50 years of age, 490 to 670 women are likely to have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination; 70 to 100, an unnecessary biopsy; and 3 to 14, an overdiagnosed breast cancer that would never have become clinically apparent.5 The board therefore recommended that no new systematic mammography screening programs be introduced and that a time limit be placed on existing programs. In addition, it stipulated that the quality of all forms of mammography screening should be evaluated and that clear and balanced information should be provided to women regarding the benefits and harms of screening.
Continue reading

Science and conflicts of interest: Ties to industry revealed

Stéphane Horel and Brian Bienkowski, “Special report: Scientists critical of EU chemical policy have industry ties,” Environmental Health News, 23 September 2013

Seventeen scientists who have criticized plans in Europe to regulate endocrine-disrupting chemicals have past or current ties to regulated industries. An investigation by Environmental Health News reveals that of 18 toxicology journal editors who signed a controversial editorial, 17 have collaborated with the chemical, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, tobacco, pesticide or biotechnology industries. Some have received research funds from industry associations, while some have served as industry consultants or advisors. The stakes are high in the controversy because it involves the European Union’s strategy to regulate hormone-altering chemicals – the first attempt in the world to do so. The new rules would have sweeping, global ramifications because all companies that sell a variety of products in Europe would have to comply.
Continue reading