The American Cancer Society Runs Away from the Cure, Part IV

1996 – The ACS together with a diverse group of patient and physician organizations, filed a "citizen`s petition" to pressure FDA to ease restrictions on access to silicone gel breast implants. What the ACS did not disclose was that the gel in these implants had clearly been shown to induce cancer in several industry rodent studies, and that these implants were also contaminated with other potent carcinogens such as ethylene oxide and crystalline silica.

1998 – The annual ACS "Cancer Facts & Figures" report made this statement regarding breast cancer: "Since women may not be able to alter their personal risk factors, the best opportunity for reducing mortality is through early detection." The publication made little or no mention of prevention. Likewise, no mention was made of contamination of animals and dairy fats and produce with carcinogenic pesticide residues or the need to switch to safer organic foods.

1998 – The ACS allocated $330,000, less than 1 percent of its then $680 million budget, to research on environmental cancer.

1999 – The ACS trivialized risks of breast, colon and prostate cancers from consumption of rBGH genetically modified milk – which is outlawed by most nations worldwide.

2002 – The ACS announced its active participation in the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association`s "Look Good…Feel Better Program," to "help women cancer patients restore their appearance and self-image following chemotherapy and radiation treatment." This program was partnered by a wide range of leading cosmetics industries, which failed to disclose information on the carcinogenic, and other toxic, ingredients in their products donated to unsuspecting women.

2002 – The ACS reassured the nation that carcinogenicity exposures from dietary pesticides, toxic waste in dump sites, ionizing radiation from "closely controlled" nuclear power plants, and non-ionizing radiation are all "at such low levels that cancer risks are negligible."

2010 – The ACS indifference to cancer prevention other than smoking remains unchanged, despite the escalating incidence of cancer and its billion dollar plus budget.

In the past, most ACS funds have come from public donations and high-profile fund raising campaigns. However, over the last few decades, an increasing proportion of the ACS budget comes from large corporations, including the pharmaceutical, cancer, chemical and fast food industries. In 1992, the American Cancer Society Foundation was created to allow the ACS to solicit contributions of more than $100,000.

A close look at the heavy-hitters on the Foundation`s board and the big donors gives an idea of which interests are at play at the ACS. The first members of the board of trustees included the president of Lederle Laboratories/American Cyanmid and the CEO of biotech giant Amgen. Amgen`s success has rested largely on the product Neupogen, which is administered to chemotherapy patients to stimulate their white blood cell production. As the cancer epidemic grows, so does sales for Neupogen.

Many of the ACS $100,000 plus "Excalibur Donors" manufacture carcinogenic products. These include:

* Petrochemical companies (DuPont, BP and Pennzoil)
* Industrial waste companies (BFI Waste Systems)
* Junk food companies (Wendy`s International, McDonalds`s, Unilever/Best Foods and Coca-Cola)
* Big Pharma (AstraZenceca; Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Company and Novartis)
* Biotech companies (Amgen and Genentech)
* Cosmetic companies (Christian Dior, Avon, Revlon, Elizabeth Arden and Estee Lauder)
* Auto companies (Nissan and General Motors)

—————————

In future installments of this series, we will examine the close relationships the American Cancer Society has with the pesticide, chemical, mammogram and cancer industries, the wealth and uncharitable performance of the ACS, how the ACS has wielded influence to suppress alternative treatments and more.