{"id":2666,"date":"2011-09-10T10:50:02","date_gmt":"2011-09-10T17:50:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/?p=2666"},"modified":"2011-09-10T10:50:02","modified_gmt":"2011-09-10T17:50:02","slug":"american-cancer-society-the-worlds-wealthiest-nonprofit-institution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/2011\/09\/10\/american-cancer-society-the-worlds-wealthiest-nonprofit-institution\/","title":{"rendered":"American Cancer Society:   The World&#8217;s Wealthiest &#8220;Nonprofit&#8221; Institution"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>American Cancer Society:                \u00a0 The World&#8217;s Wealthiest &#8220;Nonprofit&#8221; Institution<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Samuel                S. Epstein M. D.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> Conflicts of Interest<br \/>\n&#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.preventcancer.com\/losing\/acs\/wealthiest_links.htm#mam\">Mammography Industry<\/a><br \/>\n&#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.preventcancer.com\/losing\/acs\/wealthiest_links.htm#pest\">Pesticide Industry<\/a><br \/>\n&#8211; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.preventcancer.com\/losing\/acs\/wealthiest_links.htm#drug\">Drug Industry<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.preventcancer.com\/losing\/acs\/wealthiest_links.htm#board\"> Board of Trustees<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The American Cancer                 Society is fixated on damage control\u2014 diagnosis                and treatment\u2014 and basic molecular biology, with indifference                   or even                hostility to cancer prevention. This myopic mindset is compounded                   by                interlocking conflicts of interest with the cancer drug, mammography,                   and                other industries. The &#8220;nonprofit&#8221; status of the Society                   is in sharp conflict with                its high overhead and expenses, excessive reserves of assets                   and contributions to political parties. All attempts to reform                   the                   Society over the past two decades have failed; a national economic             boycott of the Society is long overdue.<\/p>\n<p>The American Cancer Society (ACS) is accumulating               great wealth in its role                as a &#8220;charity.&#8221; According to James Bennett, professor                   of economics at George                Mason University and recognized authority on charitable organizations,                   in 1988                the ACS held a fund balance of over $400 million with about                   $69 million of                holdings in land, buildings, and equipment (1). Of that money,                   the ACS spent                only $90 million\u2014 26 percent of its budget\u2014 on             medical research and programs. The rest covered &#8220;operating expenses,&#8221; including                   about 60 percent for generous                salaries, pensions, executive benefits, and overhead. By 1989,                   the cash reserves                of the ACS were worth more than $700 million (2). In 1991,                   Americans, believing                they were contributing to fighting cancer, gave nearly $350                   million to the                ACS, 6 percent more than the previous year. Most of this money                   comes from                public donations averaging $3,500, and high-profile fund-raising                   campaigns such<br \/>\nas the springtime daffodil sale and the May relay races. However,                   over the last                two decades, an increasing proportion of the ACS budget comes                   from large corporations,                including the pharmaceutical, cancer drug, telecommunications,                   and              entertainment industries.<\/p>\n<p>In 1992, the American Cancer Society Foundation               was created to allow the                ACS to actively solicit contributions of more than $100,000.                   However, a close                look at the heavy-hitters on the Foundation&#8217;s board will give                   an idea of which interests                are at play and where the Foundation expects its big contributions                   to come                from. The <strong><a name=\"board\"><\/a>Foundation&#8217;s board of trustees<\/strong> included               corporate executives from the             pharmaceutical, investment, banking, and media industries. Among             them:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li> David R. Bethune, president of Lederle Laboratories,                 a multinational pharmaceutical                 company and a division of American Cyanamid Company. Bethune                     is                  also vice president of American Cyanamid, which makes chemical                     fertilizers                  and herbicides while transforming itself into a full-fledged                     pharmaceutical                  company. In 1988, American Cyanamid introduced Novatrone, an                     anti-cancer                  drug. And in 1992, it announced that it would buy a majority                     of shares of                  Immunex, a cancer drug maker.<\/li>\n<li> Multimillionaire Irwin Beck, whose father, William                 Henry Beck, founded the                 nation&#8217;s largest family-owned retail chain, Beck Stores, which                     analysts estimate                  brought in revenues of $1.7 billion in 1993.<\/li>\n<li> Gordon Binder, CEO                 of Amgen, the world&#8217;s foremost biotechnology company,                  with over $1 billion in product sales in 1992. Amgen&#8217;s success                     rests almost exclusively                  on one product, Neupogen, which is administered to chemotherapy                 patients to stimulate their production of white blood cells.                     As the cancer epidemic                  grows, sales for Neupogen continue to skyrocket.<\/li>\n<li> Diane Disney                 Miller, daughter of the conservative multi-millionaire Walt                  Disney, who died of lung cancer in 1966, and wife of Ron Miller,                     former president                  of the Walt Disney Company from 1980 to 1984.<\/li>\n<li> George Dessert,                 famous in media circles for his former role as censor on the                  subject of &#8220;family values&#8221; during the 1970s and                     1980s as CEO of CBS, and                  now chairman of the ACS board.<\/li>\n<li> Alan Gevertzen, chairman of the board of Boeing,                 the world&#8217;s number one                 commercial aircraft maker with net sales of $30 billion in                     1992.<\/li>\n<li> Sumner M. Redstone, chairman of the board, Viacom                 Inc. and Viacom International                 Inc., a broadcasting, telecommunications, entertainment, and                     cable television                corporation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The results of this board&#8217;s efforts have                 been very successful. A million here, a               million there\u2014 much of it coming from the very industries                     instrumental in shaping                ACS policy, or profiting from it.                In 1992, <em>The Chronicle of Philanthropy<\/em> reported that the                     ACS was &#8220;more                interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives.&#8221; Fund-raising       appeals<br \/>\nroutinely stated that the ACS needed more funds to support its cancer programs,       all the while holding more than $750 million in cash and real estate assets       (3).        A 1992 article in the <em>Wall Street Journal<\/em>, by Thomas DiLorenzo, professor       of        economics at Loyola College and veteran investigator of nonprofit organizations,       revealed that the Texas affiliate of the ACS owned more than $11 million       worth        of assets in land and real estate, as well as more than 56 vehicles, including<br \/>\n11 Ford Crown Victorias for senior executives and 45 other cars assigned       to staff        members. Arizona&#8217;s ACS chapter spent less than 10 percent of its funds       on direct        community cancer services. In California, the figure was 11 percent, and       under        9 percent in Missouri (4):<\/p>\n<p>Thus for every $1 spent on direct service,                 approximately $6.40 is spent on         compensation and overhead. In all ten states, salaries and fringe benefits         are          by far the largest single budget items, a surprising fact in light of                 the characterization         of the appeals, which stress an urgent and critical need for donations          to provide cancer services.<\/p>\n<p>Nationally,              only 16 percent or less of all money raised is spent on direct services              to cancer victims, like driving cancer patients from the hospital              after         chemotherapy          and providing pain medication.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the funds raised by the ACS go to              pay overhead, salaries, fringe benefits,            and travel expenses of its national executives in Atlanta. They also           go to pay            chief executive officers, who earn six-figure salaries in several states,           and            the hundreds of other employees who work out of some 3,000 regional           offices            nationwide. The typical ACS affiliate, which helps raise the money           for the            national office, spends more than 52 percent of its budget on salaries,           pensions,            fringe benefits, and overhead for its own employees. Salaries and overhead           for            most ACS affiliates also exceeded 50 percent, although most direct           community            services are handled by unpaid volunteers. DiLorenzo summed up his           findings by            emphasizing the hoarding of funds by the ACS (4):<\/p>\n<p>If current needs are not being met because              of insufficient funds, as fund-raising              appeals suggest, why is so much cash being hoarded? Most contributors              believe their donations are being used to fight cancer, not to accumulate              financial reserves. More progress in the war against cancer would             be made if              they would divest some of their real estate holdings and use the             proceeds\u2014            as well as a portion of their cash reserves\u2014 to             provide more cancer services.<\/p>\n<p>Aside from high salaries and overhead, most              of what is left of the ACS budget                goes to basic research and research into profitable patented cancer               drugs.                The current budget of the ACS is $380 million and its cash reserves               approach                $1 billion. Yet its aggressive fund-raising campaign continues               to plead poverty                and lament the lack of available money for cancer research, while               ignoring                efforts to prevent cancer by phasing out avoidable exposures to               environmental                and occupational carcinogens. Meanwhile, the ACS is silent about               its intricate<br \/>\nrelationships with the wealthy cancer drug, chemical, and other               industries.                A March 30, 1998, Associated Press Release shed unexpected light               on questionable                ACS expenditures on lobbying (5). National vice president for federal               and state governmental relations Linda Hay Crawford admitted that               the ACS was                spending &#8220;less than $1 million a year on direct lobbying.&#8221; She               also admitted that                over the last year, the society used ten of its own employees to               lobby. &#8220;For               legal<br \/>\nand other help, it hired the lobbying firm of Hogan &amp; Hartson,               whose roster               includes former House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R\u2013 IL).&#8221; The               ACS                lobbying also included $30,000 donations to Democratic and Republican               governors&#8217;                associations. &#8220;We wanted to look like players and be players,&#8221; explained               Crawford. This practice, however, has been sharply challenged.               The Associated                Press release quotes the national Charities Information Bureau               as stating that it&#8221; does not know of any other charity that makes contributions to political               parties.&#8221;<br \/>\nTax experts have warned that these contributions may be illegal,               as charities                are not allowed to make political donations. Marcus Owens, director               of the IRS                Exempt Organization Division, also warned that &#8220;The bottom               line is campaign               contributions will jeopardize a charity&#8217;s exempt status.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>TRACK RECORD ON PREVENTION <\/strong><br \/>\nMarching in lockstep with the National Cancer Institute  (NCI)                    in its &#8220;war&#8221; on                cancer is its &#8220;ministry of information,&#8221; the ACS (6, pp.  306\u2013 314).                 With powerful                media control and public relations resources, the ACS is  the                 tail that wags the                dog of the policies and priorities of the NCI (7, 8). In  addition,                 the approach of                the ACS to cancer prevention reflects a virtually  exclusive &#8220;blame-the-victim&#8221;              philosophy. It emphasizes  faulty lifestyles rather than unknowing                 and avoidable<br \/>\nexposure to workplace or environmental carcinogens. Giant corporations,                 which                profit handsomely while they pollute the air, water, and food                 with a wide range of                carcinogens, are greatly comforted by the silence of the ACS.                 This silence                reflects a complex of mindsets fixated on diagnosis, treatment,                 and basic genetic                research together with ignorance, indifference, and even hostility                 to prevention,                coupled with conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, despite promises to the public to              do everything to &#8220;wipe out                   cancer                in your lifetime,&#8221; the ACS fails to make its voice heard in               Congress and the regulatory               arena. Instead, the ACS repeatedly rejects or ignores opportunities               and requests from Congressional committees, regulatory agencies,                   unions, and               environmental organizations to provide scientific testimony                   critical to efforts<br \/>\nto legislate and regulate a wide range of occupational and                   environmental carcinogens.                This history of ACS unresponsiveness is a long and damning                   one, as shown                by the following examples (6):<\/p>\n<p>1.                 In 1971, when studies unequivocally proved that diethylstilbestrol               (DES)                caused vaginal cancers in teenaged daughters of women administered               the drug                during pregnancy, the ACS refused an invitation to testify at Congressional                 hearings to require the FDA (U. S. Food and Drug Administration)               to ban its                use as an animal feed additive. It gave no reason for its refusal.<\/p>\n<p>2. In 1977 and 1978, the ACS opposed regulations               proposed for hair coloring               products that contained dyes known to cause breast and liver cancer               in                rodents. In so doing, the ACS ignored virtually every tenet of               responsible public                health as these chemicals were clear-cut liver and breast carcinogens.<\/p>\n<p>3. In 1977, the ACS called for a Congressional               moratorium on the FDA&#8217;s               proposed ban on saccharin and even advocated its use by nursing               mothers                and babies in &#8220;moderation&#8221; despite clear-cut evidence               of its carcinogenicity in                rodents. This reflects the consistent rejection by the ACS of the               importance of                animal evidence as predictive of human cancer risk.<\/p>\n<p>4. In 1978, Tony Mazzocchi, then senior representative               of the Oil, Chemical,               and Atomic Workers International Union, stated at a Washington,               D. C., round-table                between public interest groups and high-ranking ACS officials: &#8220;Occupational               safety standards have received no support from the ACS.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>5. In 1978, Congressman                 Paul Rogers censured the ACS for doing &#8220;too               little,                too late&#8221; in failing to support the Clean Air Act.<\/p>\n<p>6. In 1982, the ACS adopted a highly restrictive               cancer policy that insisted               on unequivocal human evidence of carcinogenicity before taking               any position on                public health hazards. Accordingly, the ACS still trivializes or               rejects evidence of                carcinogenicity in experimental animals, and has actively campaigned               against                laws (the 1958 Delaney Law, for instance) that ban deliberate addition               to food of<br \/>\nany amount of any additive shown to cause cancer in either animals               or humans.                The ACS still persists in an anti-Delaney policy, in spite of the               overwhelming                support for the Delaney Law by the independent scientific community.<\/p>\n<p>7. In 1983, the ACS refused to join a coalition               of the March of Dimes, American               Heart Association, and the American Lung Association to support               the Clean                Air Act.<\/p>\n<p>8. In 1992, the ACS issued a joint statement               with the Chlorine Institute in               support of the continued global use of organochlorine pesticides\u2014 despite               clear                evidence that some were known to cause breast cancer. In this statement,               Society                vice president Clark Heath, M. D., dismissed evidence of this risk               as &#8220;preliminary                and mostly based on weak and indirect association.&#8221; Heath               then went on to                explain away the blame for increasing breast cancer rates as due               to better detection: &#8221; Speculation that such exposures account               for observed geographic differences                in breast cancer incidence or for recent rises in breast cancer               occurrence                should be received with caution; more likely, much of the recent               rise in incidence                in the United States . . . reflects increased utilization of mammography               over                the past decade.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>9. In 1992, in conjunction with the NCI, the               ACS aggressively launched a &#8221;               chemoprevention&#8221; program aimed at recruiting 16,000 healthy               women at supposedly &#8221;               high risk&#8221; of breast cancer into a 5-year clinical trial with               a highly profitable                drug called tamoxifen. This drug is manufactured by one of the               world&#8217;s most powerful cancer drug industries, Zeneca, an offshoot               of the Imperial Chemical Industries. The women were told that the               drug was essentially harmless, and that it could reduce their risk               of breast cancer. What the women were not told was that tamoxifen               had already been shown to be a highly potent liver carcinogen in               rodent tests, and also that it was well-known to induce human uterine               cancer (6, pp. 145\u2013 151).<\/p>\n<p>10. In 1993, just before                 PBS<em> Frontline <\/em>aired the special entitled &#8220;In               Our<br \/>\nChildren&#8217;s Food,&#8221; the ACS came out in support of the pesticide               industry. In a                damage-control memorandum sent to some 48 regional divisions, the               ACS                trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer, and reassured               the public that                carcinogenic pesticide residues in food are safe, even for babies.               When the media                and concerned citizens called local ACS chapters, they received               reassurances<br \/>\nfrom an ACS memorandum by its vice president for Public Relations               (9): \u201c<\/p>\n<p>The primary health hazards of pesticides are               from direct contact with the               chemicals at potentially high doses, for example, farm workers               who apply                the chemicals and work in the fields after the pesticides have               been applied,                and people living near aerially sprayed fields. . . . The American               Cancer Society                believes that the benefits of a balanced diet rich in fruits and               vegetables                far outweigh the largely theoretical risks posed by occasional,               very low pesticide<br \/>\nresidue levels in foods.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>11. In September 1996, the ACS together with               a diverse group of patient and                physician organizations filed a &#8220;citizen&#8217;s petition&#8221; to               pressure the 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<br \/>\nwith other potent carcinogens such as ethylene oxide and crystalline               silica.                This abysmal track record on prevention has been the subject of               periodic                protests by both independent scientists and public interest groups.               A                well-publicized example was a New York City, January 23, 1994,               press                conference, sponsored by the author and the Center for Science               in the Public                Interest. The press release stated: &#8220;A group of 24 scientists               charged that the ACS                was doing little to protect the public from cancer-causing chemicals               in the               environment and workplace. The scientists urged ACS to revamp its               policies and                to emphasize prevention in its lobbying and educational campaigns.&#8221; The<br \/>\nscientists\u2014 who included Matthew Meselson and Nobel laureate               George Wald,                both of Harvard University; former OSHA director Eula Bingham;               Samuel                Epstein, author of <em>The Politics of Cancer<\/em>; and Anthony Robbins,               past president                of the American Public Health Association\u2014 criticized the               ACS for insisting on                unequivocal human proof that a substance is carcinogenic before               it will                recommend its regulation.<\/p>\n<p>This public criticism by a broad representation of highly credible               scientists                reflects the growing conviction that a substantial proportion of               cancer deaths                are caused by exposure to chemical carcinogens in the air, water,               food supply,                and workplace, and thus can be prevented by legislative and regulatory               action.                Calling the ACS guidelines an &#8220;unrealistically high-action               threshold,&#8221; a letter to                ACS executive vice president Lane Adams states that &#8220;we would               like to express<br \/>\nour hope that ACS will take strong public positions and become               a more active                force to protect the public and the work force from exposure to               carcinogens.&#8221;              ACS&#8217;s policy is retrogressive and               contrary to authoritative and scientific tenets               established by international and national scientific committees,               and is in conflict                with long-established policies of federal regulatory agencies.               Speakers at the                conference warned that unless the ACS became more supportive of               cancer prevention,                it would face the risk of an economic boycott. Reacting promptly,               the                ACS issued a statement claiming that cancer prevention would become               a major                priority. However, ACS policies have remained unchanged. More recently,               the                author has issued this warning again, a warning echoed by activist               women&#8217;s                breast cancer groups.<\/p>\n<p>In<em> Cancer Facts &amp; Figures<\/em>\u2014 1998,                 the latest annual ACS publication designed                to provide the public and medical profession with &#8220;Basic Facts&#8221; on               cancer\u2014              other than information on incidence,               mortality, signs and symptoms, and               treatment\u2014 there is little or no mention of prevention (10).               Examples include: no                mention of dusting the genital area with talc as a known cause               of ovarian cancer;                no mention of parental exposure to occupational carcinogens as               a major cause of<br \/>\nchildhood cancer; and no mention of prolonged use of oral contraceptives               and                hormone replacement therapy as major causes of breast cancer. For               breast cancer,                ACS states: &#8220;Since women may not be able to alter their personal               risk factors, the                best opportunity for reducing morality is through early detection.&#8221; In               other                words, breast cancer is not preventable in spite of clear evidence               that its incidence<br \/>\nhas escalated over recent decades, and in spite of an overwhelming               literature                on avoidable causes of this cancer (6, Chapt. 6). In the section               on &#8220;Nutrition                and Diet,&#8221; no mention at all is made of the heavy contamination               of animal and                dairy fats and produce with a wide range of carcinogenic pesticide               residues, and                on the need to switch to safer organic foods.<\/p>\n<p><strong>CONFLICTS OF INTEREST <\/strong><br \/>\nOf the members of the ACS board, about half are clinicians, oncologists,               surgeons,                radiologists, and basic molecular scientists\u2014 and most are               closely tied in                with the NCI. Many board members and their institutional colleagues               apply for                and obtain funding from both the ACS and the NCI. Substantial NCI               funds go to                ACS directors who sit on key NCI committees. Although the ACS asks               board                members to leave the room when the rest of the board discusses               their funding<br \/>\nproposals, this is just a token formality. In this private club,               easy access to funding                is one of the &#8220;perks,&#8221; and the board routinely rubber-stamps               approvals. A significant                amount of ACS research funding goes to this extended membership.               Such conflicts of interest are evident in many ACS priorities,               including their policy                on mammography and their National Breast Cancer Awareness campaign               (6).<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"mam\"><\/a><strong>Mammography <\/strong><br \/>\nThe ACS has close connections to the mammography industry. Five                radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move,                the ACS reflects the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram                machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric,                Eastman Kodak, and Piker. In fact, if every woman were to follow                ACS and NCI mammography guidelines, the annual revenue to health                care facilities would be a staggering $5 billion, including at least                $2.5 billion for premenopausal women. Promotions of the ACS continue                to<br \/>\nlure women of all ages into mammography centers, leading them to                believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer.                A leading Massachusetts newspaper featured a photograph of two women                in their twenties in an ACS advertisement that promised early detection                results in a cure &#8220;nearly 100 percent of the time.&#8221; An                ACS communications director, questioned by journalist Kate Dempsey,                responded in an article published by the Massachusetts Women&#8217;s<br \/>\nCommunity&#8217;s journal Cancer: &#8220;The ad isn&#8217;t based on a study.                When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get                women in the door. You exaggerate a point. . . . Mammography today                is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the mammography industry conducts research for the                ACS and its grantees, serves on advisory boards, and donates considerable                funds. DuPont also is a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health                Awareness Program; sponsors television shows and other media productions                touting mammography; produces advertising, promotional, and information                literature for hospitals, clinics, medical organizations, and doctors;                produces educational films; and, of course, lobbies Congress for                legislation promoting availability of mammography services. In virtually                all of its important actions, the ACS has been strongly linked with                the mammography industry, ignoring the development of viable alternatives                to mammography.<\/p>\n<p>The ACS exposes premenopausal women to radiation hazards from mammography                with little or no evidence of benefits. The ACS also fails to tell                them that their breasts will change so much over time that the &#8220;baseline&#8221;                images have little or no future relevance. This is truly an American                Cancer Society crusade. But against whom, or rather, for whom?<\/p>\n<p><strong>National                Breast Cancer Awareness Month <\/strong><br \/>\nThe highly publicized National Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign                further illustrates these institutionalized conflicts of interest.                Every October, ACS and NCI representatives help sponsor promotional                events, hold interviews, and stress the need for mammography. The                flagship of this month-long series of<br \/>\nevents is National Mammography Day, on October 17 in 1997.<br \/>\nConspicuously absent from the public relations campaign of the National                Breast Cancer Awareness Month is any information on environmental                and other avoidable causes of breast cancer. This is no accident.                Zeneca Pharmaceuticals\u2014 a spin-off of Imperial Chemical Industries,                one of the world&#8217;s largest manufacturers of chlorinated and other                industrial chemicals, including those incriminated as causes of                breast cancer\u2014 has been the sole multimillion-dollar funder                of<br \/>\nNational Breast Cancer Awareness Month since its inception in 1984.                Zeneca is also the sole manufacturer of tamoxifen, the world&#8217;s top-selling                anticancer and breast cancer &#8220;prevention&#8221; drug, with $400                million in annual sales. Furthermore, Zeneca recently assumed direct                management of 11 cancer centers in U. S. hospitals. Zeneca owns                a 50 percent stake in these centers known collectively as Salick<br \/>\nHealth Care.<\/p>\n<p>The                link between the ACS and NCI and Zeneca is especially strong when                it comes to tamoxifen. The ACS and NCI continue aggressively to                promote the tamoxifen trial, which is the cornerstone of its minimal                prevention program. On March 7, 1997, the NCI Press Office released                a four-page &#8220;For Response to Inquiries on Breast Cancer.&#8221;                The brief section on prevention reads:<\/p>\n<p>\u201c                Researchers are looking for a way to prevent breast cancer in women                at high risk. &#8230; Alargestudy [is underway] to see if the drug tamoxifen                will reduce cancer risk in women age 60 or older and in women 35                to 59 who have a pattern of risk factors for breast cancer. This                study is also a model for future studies of cancer prevention. Studies                of diet and nutrition could also lead to preventive strategies.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Since Zeneca influences every leaflet, poster, publication, and                commercial produced by National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it                is no wonder these publications make no mention of carcinogenic                industrial chemicals and their relation to breast cancer. Imperial                Chemical Industries, Zeneca&#8217;s parent company, profits by manufacturing                breast cancer\u2013 causing chemicals. Zeneca profits from treatment                of breast cancer, and hopes to profit still more from the prospects                of large-scale national use of tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention.                National Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a masterful public relations                coup for Zeneca, providing the company with valuable, if ill-placed,                good will from millions of American women.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a name=\"pest\"><\/a>The Pesticide Industry <\/strong><br \/>\nJust how inbred the relations between the ACS and the chemical industry                are became clear in the spring of 1993 to Marty Koughan, a public                television producer. Koughan was about to broadcast a documentary                on the dangers of pesticides to children for the Public Broadcasting                Service&#8217;s hour-long show, Frontline. Koughan&#8217;s investigation relied                heavily on an embargoed, ground-breaking report<br \/>\nissued by the National Academy of Sciences in June of 1993 entitled                &#8220;Pesticides in the Diet of Children.&#8221; This report declared                the nation&#8217;s food supply &#8220;inadequately protected&#8221; from                cancer-causing pesticides and a significant threat to the health                of children.<\/p>\n<p>An earlier report, issued by the Natural Resources Defense Council                in 1989,&#8221; Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in our Children&#8217;s Food,&#8221;                had also given pesticide manufacturers failing marks. The report                was released in high profile testimony to Congress by movie actress                Meryl Streep. A mother of young children, Streep explained to a                packed House chamber the report&#8217;s findings, namely, that children                were most at risk from cancer-causing pesticides on our food because                they consume<br \/>\na disproportionate amount of fruits, fruit juices, and vegetables                relative to their size, and because their bodies are still forming.                Shortly before Koughan&#8217;s program was due to air, a draft of the                script was mysteriously leaked to Porter- Novelli, a powerful public                relations firm for produce growers and the agrichemical industry.                In true Washington fashion, Porter-Novelli plays both sides of the                fence, representing both government agencies and the industries                they regulate. Its client list in 1993 included Ciba-Geigy, DuPont,                Monsanto, Burroughs<br \/>\nWellcome, American Petroleum Institute, Bristol-Meyers-Squibb,<br \/>\nHoffman-LaRoche, Hoechst Celanese, Hoechst Roussel Pharmaceutical,                Janssen Pharmaceutical, Johnson &amp; Johnson, the Center for Produce                Quality, as well as the U. S. Department of Agriculture, the NCI,                plus other National Institutes of Health.<\/p>\n<p>Porter-Novelli first crafted a rebuttal to help the manufacturers                quell public fears about pesticide-contaminated food. Next, Porter-Novelli                called up another client, the American Cancer Society, for whom                Porter-Novelli had done pro bono work for years. The rebuttal that                Porter-Novelli had just sent off to its industry clients was faxed                to ACS Atlanta headquarters. It was then circulated by e-mail on                March 22, 1993, internally\u2014 virtually verbatim from the memo                Porter-Novelli<br \/>\nhad crafted for a backgrounder for 3,000 regional ACS offices to                have in hand to help field calls from the public after the show                aired.<\/p>\n<p>&#8221;                The program makes unfounded suggestions . . . that pesticide residue                in food may be at hazardous levels,&#8221; the ACS memo read. &#8220;Its                use of `cancer cluster&#8217; leukemia case reports and non-specific community                illnesses as alleged evidence of pesticide effects in people is                unfortunate. We know of no community cancer clusters<br \/>\nwhich have been shown to be anything other than chance grouping                of cases and none in which pesticide use was confirmed as the cause.&#8221;<br \/>\nThis bold, unabashed defense of the pesticide industry, crafted                by Porter- Novelli, was then rehashed a third time, this time by                the right-wing group, Accuracy in Media (AIM). AIM&#8217;s newsletter                gleefully published quotes from the ACS memo in an article with                the banner headline: &#8220;Junk Science on PBS.&#8221; The article                opened with &#8220;Can we afford the Public Broadcasting Service?&#8221;                and went on to disparage Koughan&#8217;s documentary on pesticides and                children. &#8220;In Our<br \/>\nChildren&#8217;s Food . . . exemplified what the media have done to produce                these `popular panics&#8217; and the enormously costly waste [at PBS]                cited by the <em>New York Times<\/em>.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>When Koughan saw the AIM article he was initially outraged that                the ACS was being used to defend the pesticide industry. &#8220;At                first, I assumed complete ignorance on the part of the ACS,&#8221;                said Koughan. But after repeatedly trying, without success, to get                the national office to rebut the AIM article, Koughan began to see                what was really going on. &#8220;When I realized Porter-Novelli represented                five agrichemical companies, and that the ACS had been a client                for years,<br \/>\nit became obvious that the ACS had not been fooled at all,&#8221;                said Koughan. &#8220;They were willing partners in the deception,                and were in fact doing a favor for a friend\u2014 by flakking for                the agrichemical industry.&#8221;<br \/>\nCharles Benbrook, former director of the National Academy of Sciences                Board of Agriculture, worked on the pesticide report by the Academy                of Sciences that the PBS special would preview. He charged that                the role of the ACS as a source of information for the media representing                the pesticide and produce industry was &#8220;unconscionable&#8221;                (11). Investigative reporter Sheila Kaplan, in a 1993<br \/>\nLegal Times article, went further: &#8220;What they did was clearly                and unequivocally over the line, and constitutes a major conflict                of interest&#8221; (12).<\/p>\n<p><a name=\"drug\"><\/a> <strong>Cancer Drug Industry <\/strong><br \/>\nThe intimate association between the ACS and the cancer drug industry,                with cur-rent annual sales of about $12 billion, is further illustrated                by the unbridled aggression which the Society has directed at potential                competitors of the industry (13). Just as Senator Joseph McCarthy                had his &#8220;black list&#8221; of suspected communists and Richard                Nixon his environmental activist &#8220;enemies list,&#8221; so too                the ACS<br \/>\nmaintains a &#8220;Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management&#8221;                which periodically &#8220;reviews&#8221; unorthodox or alternative                therapies. This Committee is comprised of &#8220;volunteer health                care professionals,&#8221; carefully selected proponents of orthodox,                expensive, and usually toxic drugs patented by major pharmaceutical                companies, and opponents of alternative or &#8220;unproven&#8221;                therapies which are<br \/>\ngenerally cheap, nonpatentable, and minimally toxic (13).<\/p>\n<p>Periodically,                the Committee updates its statements on &#8220;unproven methods,&#8221;                which are then widely disseminated to clinicians, cheerleader science                writers, and the public. Once a clinician or oncologist becomes                associated with &#8220;unproven methods,&#8221; he or she is blackballed                by the cancer establishment. Funding for the<br \/>\naccused &#8220;quack&#8221; becomes inaccessible, followed by systematic                harassment. The highly biased ACS witch-hunts against alternative                practitioners is in striking contrast to its extravagant and uncritical                endorsement of conventional toxic chemotherapy. This in spite of                the absence of any objective evidence of improved survival rates                or reduced mortality following chemotherapy for all but some relatively<br \/>\nrare cancers.<\/p>\n<p>In response to pressure from People Against Cancer, a grassroots                group of cancer patients disillusioned with conventional cancer                therapy, in 1986 some 40 members of Congress requested the Office                of Technology Assessment (OTA), a Congressional think tank, to evaluate                available information on alternative innovative therapies. While                initially resistant, OTA eventually published a September 1990 report                that identified some 200 promising studies on alternative<br \/>\ntherapies. OTA concluded that the NCI had &#8220;a mandated responsibility                to pursue this information and facilitate examination of widely                used `unconventional cancer treatments&#8217; for therapeutic potential&#8221;                (14).<\/p>\n<p>Yet the                ACS and NCI remain resistant, if not frankly hostile, to OTA&#8217;s recommendations.                In the January 1991 issue of its <em>Cancer Journal for Clinicians<\/em> ACS referred to the Hoxsey therapy, a nontoxic combination of herb                extracts developed in the 1940s by populist Harry Hoxsey, as a &#8220;worthless                tonic for cancer.&#8221; However, a detailed critique of Hoxsey&#8217;s                treatment by Dr. Patricia Spain Ward, a leading contributor to the                OTA report, concluded just the opposite:&#8221; More recent literature                leaves no doubt that Hoxsey&#8217;s formula does indeed contain many plant                substances of marked therapeutic activity&#8221; (13).<\/p>\n<p>Nor is this the first time that the Society&#8217;s                 claims of quackery have been called                into question or discredited. A growing number of other innovative               therapies                originally attacked by the ACS have recently found less disfavor               and even acceptance.                These include hyperthermia, tumor necrosis factor (originally called                 Coley&#8217;s toxin), hydrazine sulfate, and Burzynski&#8217;s antineoplastons.               Well over                100 promising alternative nonpatented and nontoxic therapies have               already been                identified (15). Clearly, such treatments merit clinical testing               and evaluation by<br \/>\nthe NCI using similar statistical techniques and criteria as established               for conventional                chemotherapy. However, while the FDA has approved approximately               40                patented drugs for cancer treatment, it has still not approved               a single nonpatented                alternative drug.<\/p>\n<p>Subsequent events have further isolated the                 ACS in its fixation on orthodox                treatments. Bypassing the ACS and NCI, the National Institutes               of Health in June                1992 opened a new Office of Alternative Medicine for the investigation               of                unconventional treatment of cancer and other diseases. Leading               proponents of                conventional therapy were invited to participate. The ACS refused               and still                refuses. The NCI grudgingly and nominally participates while actively               attacking<br \/>\nalternative therapy with its widely circulated Cancer Information               Services.                Meanwhile, the NCI&#8217;s police partner, the FDA, uses its enforcement               authority                against distributors and practitioners of innovative and nontoxic               therapies.                In an interesting recent development, the Center for Mind-Body               Medicine in                Washington, D. C., held a two-day conference on Comprehensive Cancer               Care:                Integrating Complementary and Alternative Medicine. According to               Dr. James                Gordon, president of the Center and chair of the Program Advisory               Council of                the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine, the object of the conference               was to bring                together practitioners of mainstream and alternative medicine,               together with                cancer patients and high-ranking officials of the ACS and NCI.               Dr. Gordon                warned alternative practitioners that &#8220;they&#8217;re going to need               to get more rigorous<br \/>\nwith their work\u2014 to be accepted by the mainstream community&#8221; (16).               However,                no such warning was directed at the highly questionable claims               by the NCI and                ACS for the efficacy of conventional cancer chemotherapy. As significantly,               criticism                of the establishment&#8217;s minimalistic priority for cancer prevention               was                effectively discouraged.<\/p>\n<p><strong>THE ROLE OF ACS IN THE WAR AGAINST CANCER <\/strong><br \/>\nThe launching of the 1971 War Against Cancer provided the ACS                   with a                well-exploited opportunity to pursue it own myopic and self-interested               agenda.                Its strategies remain based on two myths\u2014 that there has               been dramatic progress                in the treatment and cure of cancer, and that any increase in the               incidence and                mortality of cancer is due to aging of the population and smoking,               while denying                any significant role for involuntary exposures to industrial carcinogens               in air,                water, consumer products, and the workplace.<\/p>\n<p>As the world&#8217;s largest nonreligious &#8220;charity,&#8221; with                 powerful allies in the private               and public sectors, ACS policies and priorities remain unchanged.               Despite                periodic protests, threats of boycotts, and questions on its finances,               the Society                leadership responds with powerful public relations campaigns reflecting               denial                and manipulated information and pillorying its opponents with scientific               McCarthyism.<\/p>\n<p>The verdict is unassailable.                The ACS bears a major responsibility for losing the winnable war                against cancer. Reforming the ACS is, in principle, relatively easy                and directly achievable. Boycott the ACS. Instead, give your charitable                contributions to public interest and environmental groups involved                in cancer prevention. Such a boycott is well overdue and will send                the only message this &#8220;charity&#8221; can no longer ignore.                The Cancer Prevention Coalition (chaired by the author) in April                1999 formally announced a nationwide campaign for an economic boycott                of the ACS ( <a href=\"http:\/\/www.preventcancer.com\/\">http:\/\/www.preventcancer.com<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p><em>Published                in:\u00a0 International Journal of Health Services Vol. 29, No.                3, 1999.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><strong>REFERENCES <\/strong><br \/>\n1. Bennett, J. T. Health research charities: Doing little in research                 but emphasizing politics. <em>Union Leader<\/em>, Manchester, N. H., September                 20, 1990.<\/p>\n<p>2. Bennett, J. T., and DiLorenzo, T. J. <em>Unhealthy Charities: Hazardous               to Your Health<\/em> and Wealth. Basic Books, New York, 1994.<\/p>\n<p>3. Hall, H., and Williams, G. Professor vs. Cancer Society. <em>The               Chronicle of Philanthropy<\/em>, January 28, 1992, p. 26.<\/p>\n<p>4. DiLorenzo, T. J. One charity&#8217;s uneconomic war on cancer. <em>Wall               Street Journal<\/em>,                March 15, 1992, p. A10.<\/p>\n<p>5. Salant, J. D. Cancer Society gives to governors. Associated               Press Release, March 30,                1998.<\/p>\n<p>6. Epstein, S. S., Steinman, D., and LeVert, S. <em>The Breast               Cancer Prevention Program<\/em>.                Macmillan, New York, 1997.<\/p>\n<p>7. Epstein, S. S. Losing the war against cancer: Who&#8217;s to blame               and what to do about it.<em> Int. J. Health Serv<\/em>. 20: 53\u2013 71, 1990.<\/p>\n<p>8. Epstein, S. S. Evaluation of the National Cancer Program and               proposed reforms. <em>Int. J.                Health Serv<\/em>. 23( 1): 15\u2013 44, 1993.<\/p>\n<p>9. American Cancer Society. Upcoming television special on pesticides               in food. Memorandum from S. Dickinson, Vice-President, Public Relations               and Health, to C. W.                Heath, Jr., M. D., Vice-President. <em>Epidemiology and Statistics<\/em>,               March 22, 1993.<\/p>\n<p>10. American Cancer Society. <em>Cancer Facts &amp; Figures<\/em>\u2014 1998,               pp. 1\u2013 32, Atlanta, 1998.<\/p>\n<p>11. Kaplan, S. PR Giant makes hay from client cross-pollination:               Porter\/ Novelli plays                all sides. <em>PR Watch<\/em>, First quarter, 1994, p. 4.<\/p>\n<p>12. Kaplan, S. Porter-Novelli plays all sides. Legal Times 16(               27) :1, November 23, 1993.<\/p>\n<p>13. Moss, R. W. <em>Questioning Chemotherapy<\/em>. Equinox Press, Brooklyn,               N. Y., 1995.<\/p>\n<p>14. U. S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. <em>Unconventional               Cancer Treatments<\/em>. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,               D. C., 1990.<\/p>\n<p>15. Moss. R. W. <em>Cancer Therapy: The Independent Consumer&#8217;s               Guide to Non-toxic               Treatment and Prevention<\/em>. Equinox Press, Brooklyn, N. Y., 1992.<\/p>\n<p>16. Castellucci, L. Practitioners seek common ground in unconventional               forum. <em>J. Natl.              Cancer Inst<\/em>. 90: 1036\u2013 1037, 1998.<\/p>\n<p>Contact:<\/p>\n<p>Samuel                S. Epstein, M.D.<br \/>\nUniversity of Illinois at Chicago<\/p>\n<p>School                of Public Health, MC 922<br \/>\n2121 W. Taylor Street<br \/>\nChicago, IL 60612-7260<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.preventcancer.com\/losing\/acs\/wealthiest_links.htm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>American Cancer Society: \u00a0 The World&#8217;s Wealthiest &#8220;Nonprofit&#8221; Institution Samuel S. Epstein M. D. Conflicts of Interest &#8211; Mammography Industry &#8211; Pesticide Industry &#8211; Drug Industry Board of Trustees The American Cancer Society is fixated on damage control\u2014 diagnosis and treatment\u2014 and basic molecular biology, with indifference or even hostility to cancer prevention. This myopic [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[623,23,503,622,624,471,474],"class_list":["post-2666","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-american-cancer-society","tag-cancer","tag-functionalps","tag-profit","tag-richest-non-profit","tag-rob-turner","tag-simi-valley"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2666","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2666"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2666\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2667,"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2666\/revisions\/2667"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2666"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.functionalps.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}