Pink Ribbons, Inc.

Very well made documentary about profiteering on the suffering of breast cancer patients that occurs right under our noses.I was very excited about this film's release, as I was diagnosed with very aggressive Triple Negative Breast Cancer in 2011 at age 34, along with a deleterious BRCA1 mutation which I also passed to my daughter and which forced her to undergo a bilateral mastectomy with reconstruction at age 20 in order to mitigate her risk. As a result of my diagnosis, my eyes have been opened to the dirty pink underbelly of this cause marketing darling, and I have endured more than my fair share of pink fatigue, as well as the emotionally draining rah-rah glamorization of the disease. No other deadly illness comes with inundations of the “just stay positive” nonsense and offensive sexualization such as “ta-ta’s” and “second base.” Not to mention the war/military metaphors attached to cancer and specifically breast cancer such as “battling” which inadvertently implies that those who die didn’t fight hard enough, though of course, people don’t realize this (and surely don’t mean its inverse implication) when they’re just trying to be supportive of a loved one who is facing this disease.When I was undergoing chemotherapy, it was not unusual to see people dressed in pink feather boas, bright pink tutus, or bedazzled bras worn over their shirts in the infusion area of the cancer hospital. No other form of cancer is glamorized in this way. By contrast, brain tumors and pancreatic cancer don’t have these cutesy or sexualized tropes attached to them.This documentary dares to expose the other side of the coin to show that those of us diagnosed with metastatic disease are offended and hurt at the “survivor” mantra and party-like atmosphere as well as excluded from depictions of the disease because metastatic patients will ultimately have their lives taken by this insidious disease. It is often told to metastatic patients that their presence at breast cancer events will frighten, scare, or cause lower stage patients to feel “less positive” and as a result, those dying of the disease or those with a terminal diagnosis are excluded or told not to attend events. It also shows that companies who claim to raise money for “awareness” (seriously, we are all aware...though not correctly because there is so much misinformation about such a common disease) are some of the same companies that use carcinogens in their products.This film does a very good job of showing what many breast cancer patients feel is a glamorization of their suffering and the creation of a cause marketing darling...without any real benefit to those who are diagnosed (the death rate in the US has remained around the 40,000 per year mark despite billions thrown at the disease).Those featured in the film are the late Barbara Brenner of Breast Cancer Action, breast surgeon Dr. Susan Love, Nancy Brinker (sister of Susan G. Komen), and many others. Highly recommend.

Nancy Brinker is absolutely correct (timestampt 00:22:08): no form of motivation comes from aggressive and negative awareness campaigns(aka: "Cancer Tours"). Whether you agree or disagree with the foundation she's the CEO of (as of this documentary), the statement atthat timestamp is irrefutable. Indeed, even one of the other earlier pundits in this feature said as much when she noted "all womenwant to believe their in the first (control) group" with regard to how "early detection" works versus how it is conveyed as a message.This is why when pundits like Carol Cone (00:20:16) point out the motivation of companies to get involved in such a movement makes senseto them, it really does make sense.All of that being said, and given the desire to reduce relying on (and over-funding) Government to solve the problems of our people, when anyprivate entity that is at it's heart always looking to offset ROI with Risk and Liability, it makes perfect sense that Avon, and other for-profit organizationswould offset their charity (donations/ad-awareness/marketing/etc) with product placement and promotion. It's classic quid-pro-quo: somethingall humans have actively engaged in since antiquity. for-profit involvement is a tradeoff that seems (and can sometimes be) more overtly sinisterdue to the tie in to quid-pro-quo (capatilism).In the documentary there is an interesting counter-point argument that is made (22:36) to Brinker's earlier assertion concerning the undesirable result ofnegative campaigning (22:08) in which the pundit claims that History's great movements (Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage, etc.) had people who, quote"...could combine anger, pride and optimism..." to reach the masses. This isn't completely true on all counts. For example, a tactic of Women's Suffragerelated to promoting Prohibition was in fact to vadalise saloons/bars that chose to still sell alcohol (where it was still legal). It was a form ofprotest that was anything but "optimistic". The pundit goes on to, in a way, partly agree with Brinker's earlier statement concerning therisk of alienation. However, the way in which the pundit here agrees, suggests that no form of charity is of concern to the corporation participatingin this cause; that it's all about ROI and nothing more.Up until and right before timestamp 00:24:30, it would seem the documentary is throwing a few low blows at the sake of arguing that any/all for-profitentities that "pander" for the cure are doing so simply for ROI without presenting the flaw in the government alternative: little to no coverageor treatment under universal healthcare and/or the removal/drive-out of legitimate not for profit Cancer organizations in certain states like Texasdue to recent AHA provisions and mandates for starters. Yet, despite that, 00:24:30 and on is where it is disclosed the amount that is kept by Yoplaitin their "lid for a cure" campaign: 10cents donated per lid redeemed. Its here where the argument against for-profit participation gets some legs.Morally, the idea should be that the donation will happen without any responsibility on the consumer. A for-profit should, in theory, budget theirdonations in line with normal marketing campaigns if they overtly say/assert that donations will be made during an advertised campaign.Some companies featured in the documentary already do this (Revlon and New Balance). Sadly, Yoplait, American Express (1 penny), the NFLand others cited as supporting examples are what makes the argument for the documentary solidified: profiteering.The feature asserts through the latter half that, if there were only more Government oversight/intervention programs in place to preventwhat could be the possible causes of cancer in the same products being sold by for-profit donors, this issue would be more manageable.Yet, frankly speaking, the Government Agency alternative is laughable given how government beuracracy is in this nation; little to no fiscaloversight and pork-barrel spending (until recently...hopefully). The liklihood of the EPA, CDC, Department of Energy or any other agency tostep in and police/prevent the spread of Cancer causing pollutants is impractical due in large part to accountability. A company can beboycotted, a storefront can be avoided, we can vote with our dollars (as noted at timestamp 01:00:00). With Government, no amount of Boycott will change legislationuntil someone else that agrees with your way of belief is in charge...and even then the web of back-scratching corruption is everpresent. It would've been great to see this case (and others) presented in the documentary as well, but that never happened.For the record, this review IS NOT in any way in support of the pink Ribbon Movement or any organisation (for profit or non profit) that activelymisleads/under-promises on the act of charitable donation, as this reviewer has a spouse that went through Cancer not too long ago who,like many of the pundits presented on the side of arguing against this movement, also abhors the "prettification" of the movement. But, withoutother for-profits to compare and contrast with presented directly against this argument as presented in the feature, nor without a fullassesment of the cons of the Government Subsidized alternative, the Documentary comes across more as a Morgan Spurlock style ShockumentaryOp-Ed. The information provided, if it were just an Op-Ed, is factual if a bit heavy handed, especially with regard to the nuances of cancerin general, the "real origin" of the pink ribbon, and how there is truly no magic/single-size bullet to diagnose or cure it still today. But,this feature is not a proper documentary. A pure documentary is, at its core, supposed to present all information (all opposing viewpoints andfacts concerning a thing) without bias or thesis objective; this "documentary" does not do that.

I found this to be a really well-done documentary that included a lot of varying opinions from many different women. There are a lot of voices that need to be heard - not just the ones being marketing by corporate pink ribbon.I do understand the movement - as women especially, we want to fix things. Being a part of this movement makes us feel like we are doing something against a disease we feel powerless over. I think we need to keep speaking out for change - let's keep making our voices be heard!

Great insight as to how wasted funds are that women give with their hard earned money, feeling there is hope to cure breast cancer, with only 15 cents of every dollar goes to research and only 5 cents goes to environmental research. I feel that women/people should be looking at our food system/herbicides/pesticides, and having meetings /conventions regarding how to heal your body naturally. This video blows open the doors showing how they use ways to make women feel connected to a cause that there has been no progress in getting any closer to curing cancer. Cancer is a business and these fund drives are another business giving women false hope.

Informative about a very important subject, but very repetitive. A half hour would have been ample to get across the central messages of the film. When you've seen ten races for the cure, you've seen them all. I would also have liked to see more of Susan Love and Barbara Ehrenreich, both of those books I have read to my great advantage. Nevertheless, there's a lot of important information well presented, and everybody speaks with admirable clarity.

This film is a must and definitely worth watching! It stripes down what's hidden behind the pink ribbon - MONEY!

This is a real eye opener - a must see for everyone who donates to ANY type of cancer research, but especially breast cancer. I have seen this Canadian Documentary several times but decided I absolutely had to own it.If I see any product with a pink ribbon on it I would NEVER buy it. I tell people who request breast cancer donations from me they must seem Pink Ribbon$ Inc, after telling them I never donate to any cancer related causes any longer. I feel angry when I see all the lovely ladies sitting at booths in October giving their time to this manufactured cause!!!!!!

imperative read for countering the sell of the cancer institute. Gave the book to a young woman thinking to go into oncology.

Ok

If you watch this movie, you'll probably be saddened by all the smiling faces of women wearing pink ribbons as they participate in some kind of an athletic fundraising event. Happily believing that their efforts will help find the cure for breast cancer. But as this film makes clear, breast cancer today has become an incredibly lucrative "cash cow", with huge marketing potential.While Pink Ribbon Inc. is aptly named for it's content, I can't give it five stars. Because it neglects to mention a major causal link for the epidemic rates of breast cancer found in this part of the world; the toxic North American diet. And it's the high blood cholesterol levels found in this part of the world that is both a key indicator for, and correlated to, high rates of both breast and prostate cancer.If this problem was only targeting women, then there wouldn't be the same high rates of prostate cancer in the same regions where high rates of breast cancer persist. Look to the epidemiology of these two hormonally sensitive cancers. Because it's the dietary habits of the people who end up acquiring them, that is the most telling. Or you could just watch "Forks Over Knives".