There's a long history of subsidized philanthropy - particularly in the USA - and again the public has come to expect corporations to play a role in their social welfare. It's become easy for some companies to profit from citizen goodwill and volunteerism.

When you have giant corporations that give you a one track message of "finding a cure" or of "hope" it can give the public a false sense that someone is looking after their health interest and some cases even managing their health.

The pink campaign has also served to "normalize" and depoliticize the disease and that makes it less threatening for a LOT of companies to jump onboard and claim breast cancer as their cause.

anyone own a disease? I was also startled at the level of hypocrisy. How can a leading make up company not sign onto the "Campaign for Safe Cosmetics" and at the same time promote itself as leading the fight against breast cancer?

There's a long history of subsidized philanthropy - particularly in the USA - and again the public has come to expect corporations to play a role in their social welfare. It's become easy for some companies to profit from citizen goodwill and volunteerism.

Some people don't want to know that very little progress has been made. It is in the same way that companies are selling their products (i.e. the billion dollar cosmetic industry), they can package the message of femininity and normalization around this disease.

The impression I got during the research and interview process was that they are trying to own the disease and therefore own the cause which can ultimately be more profitable for some corporations and fund-raising groups.