Inside Prevention

Values. Trust. Power. Rizzo reflects on Komen controversy

Our president and CEO Jeanne Rizzo shares with the Breast Cancer Fund community her reflections on the controversy unleashed on Tuesday when Susan G. Komen for the Cure announced it would end its funding of Planned Parenthood's breast-health programs. Your comments are welcome!

Over the last few days, we’ve all watched as the Susan G. Komen for the Cure story broke and exploded. It has consumed my attention and dominated my conversations, as perhaps it has yours too.

I was disappointed by Komen's decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood's breast-health services, as I am whenever women's health and wellness programs are cut. I was concerned about the implications for the breast-cancer-prevention initiatives that Planned Parenthood and the Breast Cancer Fund partner on. My heart went out to the women who rely on Planned Parenthood's breast-health services, to the frustrated Komen supporters, and to those who unleashed their outrage online and in conversations everywhere. And I’m heartened that the outpouring of support for Planned Parenthood's breast-health services is forcing Komen to reconsider its decision.

As the president of the Breast Cancer Fund, this incident has made me think deeply about those who support our work and what they expect from us in return. I believe you expect us to have clear and unwavering values that guide all of our decision-making. I believe you need to trust us to hold true to these values, to be good stewards of your support and to do the most effective work we can to prevent breast cancer. And I believe that you need to have power—you need to know that your voice counts and that you can meaningfully contribute to stopping this disease before it starts.

Values. Trust. Power.

The Breast Cancer Fund’s values are clear and unwavering. We value working for a world in which we live without fear of losing our breasts or our lives as a result of what we’ve eaten, touched or breathed. That’s why we are single-focused in our work to identify and eliminate the environmental causes of breast cancer.

The Breast Cancer Fund works every day to earn your trust. Our work stays true to our mission. We use every dollar donated responsibly. And we value you, our supporters, and invite you to engage with and help shape our work through our events, online communities, volunteer opportunities and more.

The Breast Cancer Fund is committed to giving you the power to prevent breast cancer. In fact, our work is fueled by your power. With your power, we’re making sure that everyone has access to the tools they need to help reduce their risk and protect their families. With your power, we're convincing elected officials and corporations to protect our health and reduce breast cancer risk. With your power, we’re leading the breast cancer movement to move beyond awareness to prevention.

The Breast Cancer Fund is an organization you can count on.

If you know people who are looking for a breast cancer organization they can count on too, please introduce your family, friends and networks to the Breast Cancer Fund. They can visit our website and sign up to receive our emails, join us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

And if you're looking for a way to show your continued support for our work, please make a donation today.

Warm Regards,
Jeanne Rizzo, R.N.
President and CEO

Kaiser Permanente detoxes AND saves money

Great news! Yesterday, health-care giant Kaiser Permanente announced it would stop using IV medical equipment made with the toxic chemicals PVC and DEHP.

 

When PVC is made, vinyl chloride—a known human carcinogen— is released, so any move to reduce the use of PVC plastic decreases our exposure to these toxic pollutants linked to cancer. DEHP is one of a group of endocrine-disrupting chemicals called phthalates that have complex effects on several hormonal systems. DEHP has been shown in lab studies to increase breast cancer cell proliferation and to interfere with breast cancer treatment.

 A Washington Post story notes that this switchover affects nearly 100 tons of medical equipment — 4.9 million IV tubing sets and 9.2 million solution bags — each year. Great, right? But it gets better: the change is also expected to save Kaiser almost $5 million a year.

Way to go, Kaiser, for showing that you can do the right thing to reduce toxic exposures and even save money along the way.

Breast cancer awareness should be a year-round event (Huffington Post, 10/27/2011)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) champions breast cancer prevention and elimination of the environmental causes of this disease in a piece for the Huffington Post. In it she mentions some of our proudest achievements, including our State of the Evidence report on environmental exposures linked to breast cancer, as well as a ban on phthalates in children's toys that Sen. Feinstein authored and we supported through its passage in 2008.

Mounting scientific evidence links exposure to everyday chemicals -- in our food, our products, our air and our water -- to breast cancer. The President's Cancer Panel released a report in 2010 that highlighted how little we know about environmental links to cancer and the need for more research.

I could not agree more with the report's recommendation that "a precautionary, prevention-oriented approach should replace current reactionary approaches to environmental contaminants."

Similarly, the Breast Cancer Fund's 2010 report, the State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment, linked breast cancer to synthetic hormones in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and meat, pesticides in food, solvents in household cleaning products; bisphenol A (BPA) in food containers and flame retardants in furniture, to name a few.

In our daily lives, we can take steps to reduce exposure to some chemicals, such as buying BPA-free products. But we need more than personal action; we need policies that ensure the public is protected. And we need to understand the chemicals we interact with every day and what they are doing to our bodies. (Read complete article.)

Thank you, Sen. Feinstein, for standing up for environmental health. Human health depends on it.

Study: BPA, methylparaben block breast cancer drugs (San Francisco Chronicle, 9/13/2011)

For years, the Breast Cancer Fund has advocated to eliminate BPA (in hard plastics and can linings) and parabens (in cosmetics) from consumer products because of their links to breast cancer risk. Now we have new evidence that BPA and methylparaben not only spur normal human breast cells to behave like cancer cells, they also resist the cancer-inhibiting effects of the drug tamoxifen.

Our CEO Jeanne Rizzo spoke to the San Francisco Chronicle about this new research from California Pacific Medical Center:

Jeanne Rizzo, chief executive officer of the Breast Cancer Fund, a San Francisco advocacy group, said the study shows that BPA and methylparaben have a triggering effect when it comes to cancer. The next step, she said, has to be for consumers to demand changes that reduce environmental exposure to these chemicals.

A bill sitting on the governor's desk would ban BPA in sippy cups and baby bottles manufactured or sold in California. AB1319 was authored by Assemblywoman Betsy Butler, D-Los Angeles.

This research is sharp warning to consumer, legislators, manufacturers and researchers alike. As the Chronicle article explains:

Since most breast cancers are driven by the hormone estrogen, the bulk of the drugs used to treat breast cancer are designed to knock down estrogen. BPA and methylparaben not only mimic estrogen's ability to drive cancer, but appear to be even better than the natural hormone in bypassing the ability of drugs to treat it, [lead researcher Dr. William] Goodson said. (Read complete article.)

Flight risk and radiation

Two days before Thanksgiving, and odds are you're traveling somewhere this week. If an airport is in your immediate future, you may have a new choice to make: full-body radiation scan or the dreaded pat-down.

Particularly if you've been exposed to a lot of radiation in your life (cancer survivors who've had radiation treatment, anyone who's had a lot of X-rays or CT scans, those whose jobs expose them to radiation), you might consider the pat-down.

Ionizing radiation is the best-established environmental cause of breast cancer. What's more, radiation's carcinogenic effects are cumulative over your lifetime. That cumulative concern led a pilots' union earlier this month to advise its members to skip the scan and go for the pat-down.

And while scanners may be considered "safe" by the federal government and FDA if correctly set up, monitored and used, the reality is that even X-ray equipment in health care settings, run by medical professionals, may be miscalibrated, malfunctioning or otherwise deliver an excessive dose of radiation accidentally.

Like the screening process itself, the choice to get a scan or a pat-down is a very personal decision. Whatever you decide is best for you this week, we wish you a happy, healthy Thanksgiving! May you and yours be well.

Study: HRT increases breast cancer mortality

A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and reported in today's New York Times found that women with breast cancer who took hormone replacement therapy more than a decade ago have a greater risk of dying than breast cancer patients who never took HRT.

In 2002, the medical world and thousands of women were rocked by the discovery that HRT increased the risk of breast cancer and other diseases. The study that produced that data, the government-funded Women's Health Initiative, was halted immediately.

Now with 11 years of follow-up to study on the original participants, the authors of this new study conclude: "Estrogen plus progestin was associated with greater breast cancer incidence, and the cancers are more commonly node-positive. Breast cancer mortality also appears to be increased with combined use of estrogen plus progestin."

This disproves the suggestion made early on that HRT increased non-aggressive breast tumors and wouldn't affect mortality rates. Not so, according to the new study. In fact, postmenopausal HRT use appeared to be associated with greater spread to lymph nodes. And ultimately, those taking combined E+P HRT had a doubled risk of death from breast cancer alone, as well as an increased death from all causes.

And while far fewer women are taking HRT today than 10 years ago, we're all being exposed to environmental chemicals that mimic estrogens and otherwise disrupt our hormone systems.

We don't have the data -- yet -- to say whether postmenopausal exposure to BPA, for example, increases breast cancer incidence and mortality in the same way as HRT. But it does give us pause, and inspires us to keep pushing for limits on chemicals that we know are hormonally active.

Read our tips for making safer healthcare choices.

It's Time for Breast Cancer Prevention Month (Huffington Post, 10/12/2010)

Read Breast Cancer Fund President Jeanne Rizzo's opinion piece on the Huffington Post about why it’s time to move beyond breast cancer awareness to prevention—very timely as we’re all awash in pink this month. Here's an excerpt:

It's that pink time of year again, Breast Cancer Awareness Month. But when virtually every American has been touched by the disease, who among us is not aware of breast cancer? What we need is Breast Cancer PREVENTION Month, and a focus on identifying and eliminating the preventable causes of the disease so fewer people ever have to receive that life-changing diagnosis. What we need is a national breast cancer prevention plan.

We know that 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and that no more than 1 in 10 of them has a genetic history of the disease. We know that breast cancer rates have increased dramatically since the 1930s, when the first reliable cancer incidence data were established, and that, strikingly, the increase parallels the proliferation of synthetic chemicals. Today, approximately 85,000 synthetic chemicals are registered for use in the United States, more than 90 percent of which have never been tested for their effects on human health.

(Read the full article.)

New report catalogues chemical and radiation links to breast cancer

On the first day of what we at the Breast Cancer Fund consider Breast Cancer Prevention Month, we released the 2010 edition of our landmark report, State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment.

What emerges from the latest scientific research is a clearer picture than ever of how exposures to chemicals and radiation affect breast cancer risk. From this evidence, we create a roadmap for a national breast cancer prevention plan.

Read the full report and explore online content at www.breastcancerfund.org/evidence.

Read an excerpt from our press release:

New Report Catalogues Chemical and Radiation Links to Breast Cancer
Scientists, health advocates call for national breast cancer prevention plan

San Francisco – A report released today by the Breast Cancer Fund presents a comprehensive summary of the scientific data on the environmental causes of breast cancer. The report catalogues the growing evidence linking breast cancer to, among other factors, synthetic hormones in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and meat; pesticides in food; solvents in household cleaning products; BPA in food containers; flame retardants in furniture; and radiation from medical treatments. The report also highlights impacts on the most vulnerable populations (including infants, pregnant women, African-American women and workers), and outlines the policy initiatives required to develop a national breast cancer prevention plan.

The report, entitled State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment, is the sixth edition published by the Breast Cancer Fund. “With each new edition of the report, the growing scientific evidence compels us to act to prevent breast cancer,” said Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., president of the Breast Cancer Fund. “This Breast Cancer Awareness Month, our message is clear: we must move beyond awareness to prevention.”

(Read full press release)

Measuring pollution in people

In recent years, biomonitoring - tracking and measuring the pollution in our bodies - has revolutionized our thinking about toxic chemicals. Studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state health departments, academic researchers and public interest groups have found hundreds of industrial chemicals used to manufacture consumer goods in the blood and urine of Americans, from seniors to fetuses in the womb.

Now, as the United States is poised to undertake a major reform of the outdated and inadequate federal toxics law, it's important that the CDC's biomonitoring programs get the funding they need. Good news: Thanks in part to the Breast Cancer Fund's efforts, the CDC recently entered into cooperative agreements with three state biomonitoring programs

in California, New York and Washington State. Unfortunately, the $5 million in available funding fell far short of the money needed to fund proposals the CDC received from 21 other states. The Breast Cancer Fund and our allies are working to increase federal funding for biomonitoring activities so the CDC can fund more state programs.

We recently sent a letter to key members of Congress urging them to provide more funding. You can also make your voice heard, by writing to your Representatives and Senators and asking them to increase funding for the biomonitoring program. In a time of tight budgets, we believe strongly that funding research that can help us understand the environmental factors of healthy is a necessary investment.

Lowering medical radiation risk

Amid growing concern about the cancer risk of improperly administered medical radiation, last month the Food and Drug Administration proposed new guidelines designed to prevent accidental radiation overdoses from the machines used for CT scans, nuclear medicine and fluoroscopy. But at a recent House subcommittee hearing, testimony made it clear the problem is bigger than can be solved by better technology – and that the focus on radiation safety must also include the risks of radiation from routine X-rays.

The New York Times – which in January ran a blockbuster series on radiation overdoses, reported:

Much of the hearing focused on CT scans, which are largely responsible for a sevenfold increase since 1980 in the average lifetime dose of diagnostic radiation. As evidence of their power, an abdominal CT scan “delivers approximately the same radiation as getting 1,500 dental X-rays,” said one witness, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a professor of radiology, epidemiology and biostatics at the University of California, San Francisco.

Given the dangers of too much radiation, Dr. Smith-Bindman said, it is important that the lowest possible dose be given.

Higher-than-needed doses of radiation are all too common in medical imaging and are often due to inadequate training of personnel and inadequate regulation. Experts estimate that in many procedures the radiation dose could be cut as much as 50 percent without sacrificing image quality. The radiation dose for a mammogram has been reduced from 2 rads in the 1970s to 0.2 rads today, for example. The current law regulating radiology dates from 1981 and made the adoption of professional standards for radiology voluntary.

The Consistency, Accuracy, Responsibility, and Excellence in Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy (CARE) Act currently in front of Congress would require states to meet minimum standards for quality assurance through licensing and training of radiology professionals. This act, sponsored by the American Society of Radiologic Technologists, would also ensure that patients undergoing all types of radiological procedures would have the same assurance of quality as patients who get mammograms currently do under the provisions of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. Requiring minimum training standards would reduce the need for repeated tests and improve the safety of radiologic procedures, thus reducing the risks of medical radiation.