Critics Cluck At Breast Cancer Awareness In A Bucket

Published works/trials of interest
Post Reply
User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Critics Cluck At Breast Cancer Awareness In A Bucket

Post by kenobewan » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:53 pm

Critics Cluck At Breast Cancer Awareness In A Bucket

Kentucky Fried Chicken has been on a controversial roll lately. Last week, it announced that it would be launching a "Buckets for the Cure" campaign in association with Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which means the next time you pick up some of the Colonel's chicken, don't be surprised when it comes in a bright pink pail.

KFC went so far as to paint one of it's Louisville, NY locations hot pink for promotion.

But the the campaign has many crying foul.

Among the critics is a rival breast cancer group called Breast Cancer Action. They're accusing KFC of "pinkwashing" -- that's a term they coined back in 2003 for companies who associate themselves to the breast cancer awareness cause while manufacturing products that are linked to the disease. Breast Cancer Action's "Think Before You Pink" website even encourages people to rally against "Buckets of the Cure."

Barbara Brenner, a breast cancer survivor and executive director of Breast Cancer Action, told Shots that the term "pinkwashing" is aimed at KFC, which has pledged 50 cents of each pink bucket sold to Susan G. Komen for the Cure, but she said the Komen Foundation is implicated, too, for partnering up with the fast-food giant.

Brenner said that low-income people tend to have worse health outcomes, and are often most acutely affected by diseases like breast cancer, and she pointed to a lack of access to "good food" as a primary reason for this.

Though Andrea Rader, a Komen spokesperson, said that, "we primarily see this as an opportunity to do a lot of outreach in a lot of places we wouldn't ordinarily reach," Brenner contended that raising money for breast cancer by selling unhealthy products "smacks of a certain level of hypocrisy."

Excess body fat has been linked to an increased risk of cancer by the American Cancer Society. A 2003 American Cancer Society study published in the New England Journal of Medicine -- one of many on the topic -- found that obesity is associated with increased cancer death rates. In fact, severely obese women were most at risk, having a 62 percent higher death rate from all cancers combined than their normal-weight counterparts.

The Komen Foundation itself notes such links on its website, so how do they reconcile a pink bucket of fried (or even grilled) chicken, which doesn't exactly qualify as health food, with their mission?

"Consumers ultimately have a choice about what they will eat," says Andrea Rader, a Komen spokesperson said, adding that KFC has a range of options: "they have grilled chicken, they have vegetables, they have information on their website about healthy eating....This partnership gives people information on how to eat healthy at this restaurant [and] spreads education about breast cancer."

But Brenner said that that the idea of personal responsibility sends the message that breast cancer is one's own fault. "Komen says it's the responsibly of individual to eat healthy, but [low-income people] can't be responsible to eat healthy when they don't have the resources -- either food or money -- to do that," she said.

That's not to discount all of the work the Komen Foundation has done over the years, Brenner said. The Komen Foundation has lent its name and the 'pink' label to various programs over the years, but it's also been a major player in raising breast cancer awareness and galvanizing a community around the breast cancer cause, as Nancy Brinker told NPR earlier this year.

Still, Brenner said that BCA and other organizations in support of the breast cancer cause, would like to see the focus shift toward more in-depth education about the disease. "Komen has done a fabulous job of raising awareness of breast cancer, but we don't need any more awareness. We've got plenty of awareness. The question is, how much do people know and what do we do now?" she said. ... n_a_b.html

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:56 pm

KFC Peddling Cancer-Causing Food in Pink Buckets

Just when I thought KFC couldn't possibly stoop any lower, the company started selling its carcinogenic chicken in pink buckets to raise money for breast cancer research. Seriously. I suppose next Phillip Morris will start donating a portion of the proceeds from its cigarette sales for lung cancer research.

I would've sworn KFC was already at rock bottom. It's not as if it’s known to be a respectable company. It has a shameful history of cruelty to animals and its own advisors have resigned in frustration with the company for refusing to implement stronger animal welfare policies. It's been criticized by Greenpeace for destroying more than 2.9 million acres of rainforest in the 2004-2005 crop season in order to grow crops that are used to feed chickens and other factory-farmed animals, and called out by Care2's Beth Buczynski for destroying America's Southern forests to produce its throw-away buckets.

KFC restaurants have made headlines for having some pretty foul hygienic issues, and the company has been sued by the Center for Science in the Public Interest for using startlingly high amounts of artery-clogging trans fats, and just about every health expert and sane individual in the world has balked at KFC's vile new Double Down.

The company itself is vile, frankly. But selling its Kentucky Grilled Chicken and Original Recipe chicken in pink buckets? Only one word comes to mind: Hypocritical. (Well, a lot of words come to mind, but they're not appropriate here.) KFC's Kentucky Grilled Chicken contains PhIP and other chemicals known as heterocyclic amines (HCAs), which have been linked to several types of cancer, including breast cancer.

A scientist with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) visited six different KFC restaurants, obtained two samples from each location and sent them to an independent testing laboratory. All 12 samples contained PhIP and at least one additional type of HCA. These carcinogens don't naturally exist in chicken flesh; they form when meat is cooked to high temperatures. (HCAs don't form on grilled vegetables—even when they're charred beyond recognition.)

Research from University of Texas scientists also shows that eating charred meats, as well as fried fish and chicken, can significantly raise one's risk of bladder cancer. The findings even suggest that HCAs can raise cancer risk by more than two-and-a-half.

Because of the increased cancer risk, PCRM asked KFC to stop selling Kentucky Grilled Chicken, or at least warn consumers that it contained carcinogens. KFC refused. And now the company is concerned about fighting cancer? I don't think so.

You might think that, since many people are going to buy the rot anyway, the proceeds may as well go to cancer research, but that's sort of like paying a nominal carbon offset after taking a jumbo jet around the world. It's a slap in the face to cancer survivors too. When I told my best friend -- a breast cancer survivor who went vegan after having a mastectomy, and now staunchly encourages other women to eat healthy plant-based foods and support clinical research methods -- about KFC's new pink buckets, she was practically stunned. "OH MY GOD! DISGUSTING!" was all she could manage to reply.

As PCRM points out, whether it's grilled, fried, baked, or otherwise, chicken is not a healthy food. If KFC cared at all about women, it would stop pushing cancer-causing food in the first place. Selling it in pink buckets is about as counterproductive as putting the brakes on a car after it rolls down a hill and smashes into a tree. Please don't support KFC, and let them know why not. If you're looking for a productive, humane way to help fight breast cancer, please support the Cancer Project, a run program by PCRM. ... k-buckets/

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:58 pm

As long as the chicken isn't pink...

I'll admit,when my awesome colleague Victoria Colliver pointed me to the "Buckets for a Cure" Web site today, I thought it was a hoax. KFC and Susan G. Komen, teaming together to sell pink buckets of fried chicken and raise money for breast cancer? Ha! What a great prank.

Except, it appears to be real. According to a press release issued by KFC last week, participating fast-food franchises around the country will be selling pink buckets of chicken through the end of May. For each pink bucket sold, the franchises will donate 50 cents to Komen for breast cancer research and community programs. So far KFC has raised about $1.7 million (according to the "Buckets" Web site), with a goal of raising more than $8 million.

The pink buckets will feature the names of breast cancer survivors and those who have died. (Maybe it's just me, but that seems just a bit tacky.)

As might be expected, there's been just a touch of Internet outrage over this partnership, mostly on nutrition and cancer blogs, but also on Facebook and Twitter. A lot of folks are questioning just how appropriate it is for a fast-food chain that sells, well, not exactly the most healthful food to partner with a group known globally for helping save women's lives. (In all fairness, KFC is donating 50 cents for the "grilled chicken" buckets too.)

Actually, this odd melding of "junk food" suppliers and groups that promote healthy living and research is hardly unusual. McDonald's has long been a sponsor of the Olympics, Pepsi is financing an obesity studies program at Yale, and a national program to promote healthy hearts and lungs was slammed earlier this year for partnering with Coke. It's all going to a good cause, right? ... y_id=61860

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:03 pm

Susan G. Komen for the Cure sells pink cigarettes for cancer fundraising (satire)

(NaturalNews Satire) Susan G. Komen for the Cure today announced its alliance with the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company in launching its new brand of pink cigarettes called "Komen Smokes." Emblazoned with the slogan, "A pack a day keeps cancer away," three cents from every pack of cigarettes will be directed to funding the search for the cure for cancer.

It's all part of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure's expansion into fundraising for cancer research by selling more products and services that actually cause cancer. "Komen for the Cure has already endorsed fast food fried chicken and toxic cosmetics made with cancer-causing chemicals," said pinkwashing spokesperson Dave Sourface. "So we thought, hey, why not just make money off cigarettes, too?"

Thanks to a recent decision to abandon all ethics and just go after the money, Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been able to expand its pinkwashing campaign to a number of new and unusual sectors of the economy:

• The Ukraine chapter of Susan G. Komen for the Cure will be hosting "Chernobyl Tours for the Cure" that offer visitors a chance to walk through the radioactive remains of the former nuclear power plant that suffered a meltdown in 1986. Komen spokesperson Dave Sourface explained, "It's like receiving a thousand mammograms all at once! What could be wrong with that?"

• In China, organs harvested from political prisoners are being spray-painted pink and sold back to wealthy transplant recipients under Susan G. Komen's new, "Organ Harvesting for the Cure" program. "The cool thing about this is that many of the organs are already pink," explained Sourface. "So we don't even have to color them pink."

• In Houston, Texas, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure chapter will be hosting an all-you-can-eat "Bacon for the Cure" contest. All the bacon will be laced with extra sodium nitrite (a cancer-causing chemical found in most bacon products) with the purpose of seeing who can eat the most bacon without dying of cancer right on the spot. Oncologists will be standing by with chemotherapy injection devices to "treat" the contestants who develop spontaneous tumors.

• The Las Vegas, Nevada offices of Susan G. Komen for the Cure has announced its new "Gambling for the Cure" program featuring pink casinos that are offering to donate 1% of the losings of gambling addicts to the organization.

But among all these pinkwashing campaign efforts, Susan G. Komen for the Cure believes that its "Komen Smokes" program will be the most successful. "We've laced our pink cigarettes with extra nicotine to help our smokers get addicted to fundraising." said Sourface.

Getting our (pink) cut

Critics have been quick to point out the hypocrisy of an apparent cancer fundraising non-profit group making money off products and services that actually cause cancer, but this didn't seem to faze Komen for the Cure. "People are buying cigarettes every day," explained spokesperson Sourface. "Why shouldn't we use some of that money to expand our organization and pay our executives higher salaries?"

"We want to take a cut of every transaction in the free world by calling it pink," said Sourface. "When a drug dealer sells crack on the street, we want it to be pink Susan G. Komen crack. When a customer hires a prostitute in Vegas, we want them to be using pink Susan G. Komen condoms. When the U.S. Army fights a war in the Middle East, we want them to be firing pink Komen bullets. Whether it's junk food, bullets, condoms, illegal street drugs, gambling or even organized prostitution, we want our pink cut of the action."

Sort of like the mob.

K.F.C. now stands for Komen For the Cure. (Followed by a huge bout of laughter at the idea that eating fried chicken can cure cancer.) (Thank you to R. S. for the tip on that.)

Editor's Note: This article is pure satire. Well, except for the part about Susan G. Komen for the cure selling buckets of fried chicken. That's real. Read more here: ... shing.html

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:16 pm

My Opinion

I personally was disappointed by this campaign by KFC to profit from breast cancer. I hope that no one associated with brain cancer or other cancer for that matter decide to sell out.

The Komen people have put marketing and profits before people. No they are not doing anything illegal and yes some people may even stand to benefit from the research. But how many cases of obesity and chronic illnesses are these pink buckets going to cause. How do you rationalise that? Is there a cost benefit analysis of how many people are harmed versus how many people benefit?

Unfortunately, people are still choosing to eat this food. It would send the right message if people didn't. As one article said, many of these people are poor and may not know of the damage they are causing to themselves. The sooner these businesses fail due to a lack of demand the better. Unfortunately, this looks unlikely in the near future.

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:30 pm

Is that right? Buying KFC buckets fights breast cancer?

I try to keep an open mind, but my brain is just boggled by the Buckets for the Cure partnership between KFC and Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

"Help make the largest single donation to end breast cancer forever," the campaign urges. The suggestion is that KFC will donate money -- its goal is $8.5 million -- to the charity at a rate of 50 cents for every special pink bucket of chicken sold over the next month.

But bear in mind that the "F" in KFC stands for "fried." Here's a line from the National Cancer Institute's Web site:

". . .studies have shown that an increased risk of developing colorectal, pancreatic, and breast cancer is associated with high intakes of well-done, fried, or barbequed meats."

Beyond that, since obesity raises breast cancer risk, it's worth looking at some numbers: According to the KFC Web site, an original-recipe fried chicken breast has 320 calories, 15 grams of total fat (including 3.5 grams of saturated fat); a thigh has 220 calories, 15 grams of total fat (4 of them saturated).

So, no, I don't think that buying fried chicken by the bucket is a good way to fight breast cancer. Even the grilled-chicken option, though less caloric and fat-laden (a breast has 190 calories, 6 grams total fat and 1.5 grams saturated fat; the thigh has 150 calories, 9 grams total fat and 2.5 grams saturated fat), still fits into that "barbequed" category noted above.

So maybe you're thinking, okay, I want to be supportive, so I'll buy the bucket and chuck the chicken. No need. The fine print at the foot of the Web page points out that "KFC restaurant operators have contributed 50 cents to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure for each Komen branded bucket purchased by the operators from April 5, 2010-May 9, 2010....Customer purchases of KFC buckets during the promotion will not directly increase the total contribution." (It's also noted that KFC has guaranteed the contribution will be at least $1million. Which really is very nice.)

Notice that the promotions are careful not to mention that any purchase is necessary. They simply say that "for every pink bucket" -- not the sale of every bucket -- fifty cents goes to Komen. So we consumers are off the hook, really.

A 10-piece bucket of KFC fried chicken (including the sides) costs about $20. If you're really interested in supporting Komen for the Cure's efforts, why not just mail them a check directly? Then take a moment to vote in today's poll! ... ss=checkup

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:18 am

Good health is no accident

(NaturalNews) Those who seek answers for their health outside the realm of their own decisions are looking in the wrong place. Health is no accident. Lasting health can only appear as the result of a lifetime of informed, deliberate decisions aligned with nature's principles of health, not the distorted version of health promoted by our backward system of mainstream medicine.

And yet many people still believe that health is something that is bestowed upon them by some mysterious exterior force. The whole effort to raise money to find "the cure" for cancer, for example, is a powerful demonstration of misplaced faith in external healing. This idea that a cure for cancer must come from outside one's self rather than from within is perhaps the greatest conceptual sleight of hand that has yet been pulled off by the sick-care industry.

The cure for cancer is already programmed within. Each person is born with a highly-advanced cellular nanotechnology that already knows how to cure cancer. Activating this inner healing potential is all that's necessary to prevent and cure cancer everywhere around the world, starting right now.

Health happens through you, not to you

And yet the masses continue to eat cancer-causing foods and pursue cancer-causing lifestyles even while blindly handing over their money in the form of donations to organizations that they naively hope will come along and "save them" someday.

Think carefully about this dynamic: The person believes health is something that happens TO them rather than something that happens THROUGH them. And so they remain stuck, floundering in a pattern of self-inflicted sickness and disease while hoping that some other organization, government or health care plan will somehow save them.

While they wait for that external solution, disease and sickness creeps up on them.

Obesity is what happens when a person spends each day imagining how much they're going to start exercising tomorrow.

Cancer is what happens when a person spends each day eating cancer-causing foods and donating money to Komen for the Cure rather than just getting some sunshine to boost their own vitamin D.

Disease is what happens when people believe they have no role in their own health outcome. So they eat for entertainment rather than for nourishment, and they live for product-induced external stimulation rather than internal fulfillment.

Woosh -- right over their heads!

At this point in this article, by the way, we've already lost 99 out of 100 mainstream people. These concepts -- that health is no accident -- are so foreign to the average pre-programmed consumer that they are incapable of recognizing them, much less embracing them. They've been told so many times that health comes through intervention (vaccines, pharmaceuticals, chemotherapy, etc.) that the idea of health being created from within just doesn't compute for them.

And that's the way mainstream medicine likes it. A population that believes it has no control over its own health is ripe for exploitation by a highly interventionist medical industry. Those who have lost hope in their own inner health potential tend to place their hope in things like silly pink-ribbon fundraisers that promise to "end breast cancer forever" -- a wishy-washy idea that lies somewhere between poetic fiction and outright marketing fraud.

Cancer can never be "cured" through any external, artificial means, regardless of how many billions of dollars are thrown at it. Trying to cure cancer with synthetic medications makes about as much sense as trying to cure illiteracy by feeding children "reading pills."

Health is a determined path, not an accidental occurrence

Health, like learning to read, is something that must be pursued through dedicated self-advancement. Neither literacy nor health can be endowed upon you with the flick of a magic (medication) wand. They cannot be injected into you through a needle. They can only be achieved by teaching each person how to own their results.

If you wish to learn how to read, for example, you must first accept responsibility that no one else can read for you. YOU must go through the learning and advancement curve if you wish to experience the positive results of being literate.

It's the same with health: If you wish to express health literacy, no one else can do it for you -- no doctor, no vaccine, no cancer non-profit group and certainly not pink buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken. You must grasp the controls over your own health destination. Take responsibility for the results you are creating with each and every decision you make: Decisions about food, stress, sleep, the use of your mind, the use of your free time, the personal care products you use, etc.

Be an adult

If you accept responsibility for your own health, then you are an adult. Children, on the other hand, take no responsibility for themselves and instead rely on outside factors to determine their experience. A child's happiness, sadness and other circumstances depend almost entirely on what's happening externally at that moment.

Adulthood is only achieved when a person grasps the level of maturity necessary to allow their inner expressions to override external influences. An adult is someone who can achieve their own health, learning, happiness or bliss without needing to turn to external (artificial) stimulations to mimic such conditions.

A child mind, for example, uses food as entertainment, television as distraction and condescension as an affirmation of self importance. This is the role of much of reality television, for example: To allow the viewing audience to feel important by offering them a visual forum through which they can express judgmental views at the inadequate people being paraded in front of them through artificial constructs of staged emotional drama.

In other words, you get to judge people and hurl verbal insults at them. "She's got fake boobs! My gosh!"

Consumption is a one-way street

As you've probably already noticed, most of the mainstream population operates from the child mindset. They are consumers, begging to be distracted, injected, entertained, medicated and told how to live, think and feel (and vote). The idea of stepping outside this preprogrammed existence and exploring the world from an adult mindset is downright frightening to these people.

Approaching the world from a point of view that acknowledges self-responsibility means casting aside all the convenient comforts of living life as a child and instead bracing yourself for the harsh reality of taking responsibility for your own decisions. Being a child is so much easier, isn't it? If you're just a child, you can't be blamed for bad results. It's always someone else's fault. (How long do I have to wait for Komen to actually FIND the cure, anyway? Can I keep eating bacon in the mean time?)

Most people, no matter what their age, have still not achieved self-responsibility. Most people are engorged in their television, gossip, fast food, chemical addictions and illusions of health that they've acquired by purchasing "trans fat free" processed foods or "high fiber" breakfast cereal laced with sugar. They are the minds of children living in deteriorating adult bodies while begging for magical medical interventions that will never exist.

My greatest wish is that our population of humans on our planet will grow up and embrace adulthood. Only through educated, responsible decisions that consider the long-term consequences of our immediate actions can individuals -- or humanity -- hope to evolve into a sustainable species. The failure of mainstream humans to understand simple concepts like "health is no accident" are merely a reflection of the far wider and more dangerous failures to understand the dynamics of sustainable life on a self-contained planet in a vast and formidable universe.

If we cannot attain the level of adulthood to take care of our own bodies, how on earth can we expect to achieve the level of consciousness necessary to function as stewards for the only habitable planet we know of in our entire universe?

Humanity remains in its infancy. Those of us who accept responsibility for our own actions are living as rare observers in a world run by children, populated by children and now being destroyed by children -- all in adult bodies, of course. The childish concepts of selfish thinking and "that's MINE!" are the lifeblood of our world's largest corporations which seek to own everything they touch, much like little children licking all the cookies to claim them as personal property.

Corporations, for the most part, are immature expressions of economic selfishness that cater to immature consumers who have not yet decided to embrace adult-class self responsibility. The entire free market, in fact, is driven primarily by childish selfish greed rather than ideas of compassion for fellow human beings or business models based on determined sustainability rather than consumption gullibility.

Even most of the non-profits, which are supposed to be based on compassion, have turned into childish, greed-driven money expansion machines that only seek to rake in more profits at any cost to society. Nowhere is this more evident than in the cancer industry, where both the American Cancer Society and Komen for the Cure have become financial juggernauts by promising cures for cancer but delivering nothing but more disease to the people. (Mammograms cause cancer, for example.)

It is no accident, either, that in our time of the greatest disease ever witnessed on planet earth, we also live among the most powerful and exploitative "disease non-profits" that promise health salvation if we would only give them another few billion dollars.

As long as childish thinking dominates modern society, such fraudulent non-profits will continue to prey upon the externalization of health tendencies of the population. The greatest fear of every disease non-profit front group is that mainstream consumers might wake up, take charge of their own health, begin to make informed decisions about preventing disease and thereby make the disease non-profits largely irrelevant.

How convenient it is, then, that the very products now used to raise money for the cancer industry non-profits are the same ones that promote cancer, heart disease, obesity and dull minds.

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Tue May 18, 2010 5:42 pm

Greed, Cancer and Pink KFC Buckets

We live in a world of profound contradictions. Some things are just unbelievably strange. At times I feel like I've found a way to adapt to the weirdness of the world, and then along comes something that just boggles my mind.

The largest grassroots breast cancer advocacy group in the world, a group called "Susan G. Komen for the Cure," has now partnered with the fast food chain KFC in a national "Buckets for the Cure" campaign. The program began last month and runs through the end of May.

KFC is taking every chance it can manufacture to trumpet the fact that it will donate 50 cents to Komen for every pink bucket of chicken sold.

For its part, Komen is announcing on its website that "KFC and Susan G. Komen for the Cure are teaming up ... to ... spread educational messaging via a major national campaign which will reach thousands of communities served by nearly 5,000 KFC restaurants."

Educational messaging, indeed. How often do you think this "messaging" provides information about the critical importance a healthy diet plays in maintaining a healthy weight and preventing cancer? How often do you think it refers in any way to the many studies that, according to the National Cancer Institute's website, "have shown that an increased risk of developing colorectal, pancreatic, and breast cancer is associated with high intakes of well-done, fried or barbecued meats?"

If you guessed zero, you're right.

Meanwhile, the American Institute for Cancer Research reports that 60 to 70 percent of all cancers can be prevented with lifestyle changes. Their number one dietary recommendation is to: "Choose predominantly plant-based diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, legumes and minimally processed starchy staple foods." Does that sound like pink buckets of fried chicken?

Pardon me for being cynical, but I have to ask, if Komen is going to partner with KFC, why not take it a step further and partner with a cigarette company? They could sell pink packages of cigarettes, donating a few cents from each pack while claiming "each pack you smoke brings us closer to the day cancer is vanquished forever."

Whose brilliant idea was it that buying fried chicken by the bucket is an effective way to fight breast cancer? One breast cancer advocacy group, Breast Cancer Action, thinks the Komen/KFC campaign is so egregious that they call it "pinkwashing," another sad example of commercialism draped in pink ribbons. "Make no mistake," they say, "every pink bucket purchase will do more to benefit KFC's bottom line than it will to cure breast cancer."

One thing is hard to dispute. In partnering with KFC, Susan B. Komen for the Cure has shown itself to be numbingly oblivious to the role of diet in cancer prevention.

Of course it's not hard to understand KFC's motives. They want to look good. But recent publicity the company has been getting hasn't been helping. For one thing, the company keeps taking hits for the unhealthiness of its food. Just last month, when KFC came out with its new Double Down sandwiches. The products were derided by just about every public health organization for their staggering levels of salt, calories and artery-clogging fat.

Then there's the squeamish matter of the treatment of the birds who end up in KFC's buckets, pink or otherwise. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has an entire website devoted to what they call Kentucky Fried Cruelty, but you don't have to be an animal activist to be horrified by how the company treats chickens, if you lift the veil of the company's PR and see what actually takes place.

When PETA sent investigators with hidden cameras into a KFC "Supplier of the Year" slaughterhouse in Moorefield, West Virginia, what they found was enough to make KFC choke on its own pink publicity stunts. Workers were caught on video stomping on chickens, kicking them and violently slamming them against floors and walls. Workers were also filmed ripping the animals' beaks off, twisting their heads off, spitting tobacco into their eyes and mouths, spray-painting their faces, and squeezing their bodies so hard that the birds expelled feces -- all while the chickens were still alive.

Dan Rather echoed the views of many who saw the footage when he said on the CBS Evening News, "There's no mistaking what the video depicts: cruelty to animals, chickens horribly mistreated before they're slaughtered for a fast-food chain."

KFC, naturally, did everything they could to keep the footage from being aired, but their efforts failed. In fact, the video from the investigation ended up being broadcast by TV stations around the world, as well as on all three national evenings news shows, Good Morning America, and every one of the major cable news networks. Plus, more than a million people subsequently watched the footage on PETA's website.

It wasn't just animal activists who condemned the fast food chain for the level of animal cruelty displayed at KFC's "Supplier of the Year" slaughterhouse. Dr. Temple Grandin, perhaps the meat industry's leading farmed-animal welfare expert, said, "The behavior of the plant employees was atrocious." Dr. Ian Duncan, a University of Guelph professor of applied ethology and an original member of KFC's own animal-welfare advisory council, wrote, "This tape depicts scenes of the worst cruelty I have ever witnessed against chickens ... and it is extremely hard to accept that this is occurring in the United States of America."

KFC claims, on its website, that its animal-welfare advisory council "has been a key factor in formulating our animal welfare program." But Dr. Duncan, along with five other former members of this advisory council, say otherwise. They all resigned in disgust over the company's refusal to take animal welfare seriously. Adele Douglass, one of those who resigned, said in an SEC filing reported on by the Chicago Tribune that KFC "never had any meetings. They never asked any advice, and then they touted to the press that they had this animal-welfare advisory committee. I felt like I was being used."

You can see why KFC would be eager to jump on any chance to improve its public image, and why the company would want to capitalize on any opportunity to associate itself in the public mind with the fight against breast cancer. What's far more mystifying is why an organization with as much public trust as Susan B. Komen for the Cure would jeopardize public confidence in its authenticity. As someone once said, it takes a lifetime to build a reputation, but only 15 minutes to lose it.

If you want to support an organization fighting breast cancer, you might want to know about the little known but extraordinary Pine Street Foundation. While everyone wants to detect breast cancer as early as possible, the Pine Street Foundation has been developing a remarkable alternative to mammograms. Susan B. Komen for the Cure, you may know, has been one of the foremost proponents of mammograms, suggesting their use for women as young as 25. But mammograms involve subjecting a woman's breast to radiation, and so if repeated too often actually raise the risk of breast cancer.

In a large international collaboration, the Pine Street Foundation has been studying the ability of dogs to use their remarkable sense of smell for the early detection of lung and breast cancer. The work is based on the fact that cancer cells emit different metabolic waste products than normal cells, and the differences between these can be detected by a dog's keen sense of smell, even in the early stages of the disease. So far, the dogs' ability to correctly identify or rule out lung and breast cancer, at both early and late stages, has been around 90 percent -- approximately the same accuracy rate as mammograms, with none of the radiation. In one study, for example, involving more than 12,000 separate scent trials, dogs were able to identify lung and breast cancer patients by smelling samples of their breath. The dogs' performance was not affected by the disease stage of cancer patients, nor by their age, smoking or recently eaten food.

I've met the dogs involved in these studies (Portuguese water dogs, and yellow and black Labrador retrievers) and I know the people who have designed and undertaken these studies, and I've been impressed. Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to be "screened" by the dogs to see if you have cancer, but there is every hope that the concepts explored in this research will lead in the future to cancer screening methods that are more accurate than mammograms, and less harmful.

The work of the Pine Street Foundation is a good example of the many new and hopeful possibilities that are emerging. Every day there are additional people and more groups blazing a path to healthy food, real prevention, and less toxic approaches to treatment. The Cancer Project, for example, promotes cancer prevention, particular by advocating for nutritional approaches that reduce cancer risk. Breast Cancer Action carries the voices of people affected by breast cancer to inspire and compel the changes necessary to end the breast cancer epidemic. And Beyond Pesticides works to protect public health and the environment while leading the transition to a less toxic world.

Vibrant, grounded and inspiring, these groups and many others like them are pointing in a healthy and sane direction. In a time when KFC has become the poster company for pinkwashing, they stand before us as true examples of The New Good Life. ... 77574.html

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Tue May 25, 2010 10:13 am

Can Too, Australian Gym, Uses Membership Fees To Raise Money For Cancer Research

Causecast Video Blog:

A fitness club in Australia has an interesting spin when it comes to membership fees and workout regimens. Members of Can Too start with paying a $100 AUD fee ($82.56 USD), and choose to focus on running or swimming.

For running, they have 10, 14, and 20 week programs that train for 10k, 21k and 42k marathons (swimmers train to race 1 km, 2 km and 2.7 km events). But in addition to the final events, each member pledges to raise $800, $1250 and $2000 AUD (for each respective distance) that goes toward Cure Cancer Australia. ... 87579.html

[comment - this may be a cancer promotion to cheer about]

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:43 pm

Komen breast cancer walk canceled

DENVER -- The Denver chapter of the Susan G. Komen foundation has cancelled its 3-Day for the Cure event due to financial difficulties, managers said.

“This was a difficult decision in difficult economic times. However, we were not meeting our financial goals in this market and we believe that canceling the event was the most responsible course of action for the program and our donors,” the foundation said in a statement Tuesday.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure began holding the 3-day, 60-mile walk in 2009 to raise money for breast cancer awareness and treatment. Participants were required to raise $2,300 in addition to the registration fee.

14 other cities still host the event.

The cancelation of 3-Day for the Cure does not affect the annual Race for the Cure in Denver, which draws tens of thousands of participants each year. ... 1867.story

[comment - its profits that are important not saving lives]

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:31 am

Krispy Kreme Challenge: Runners Dine and Dash

Thousands participated in this year's Krispy Kreme Challenge today in Raleigh, N.C., as runners were required to eat a dozen of the company's glazed doughnuts and run two miles to the finish line.

The Krispy Kreme Challenge is an annual student-operated race; it began on 2004 as a dare between 10 North Carolina State students and now raises money for the North Carolina Children's Hospital at Chapel Hill, N.C.

"The actual product of the Krispy Kreme Challenge takes place over the span of about two to three hours on race day, but the planning and hours of work put into this process are far greater," said Sudeep Sunthankar, co-chair of the challenge, to Technician.

Each runner runs 2 miles from the N.C. State Belltower to the Krispy Kreme store on Peace St. in Raleigh, consumes 12 doughnuts and runs 2 miles back.

This year about 72,000 donuts were consumed by more than 6,000 participants, and the race raised over $100,000 for the hospital, according to ABC station WTVD in Raleigh.

One glazed Krispy Kreme doughnuts is an estimated 200 calories -- 2,400 calories total for the challenge. ... d=12848787

[comment - mind boggling - 2400 empty calories, at least a days worth - let alone the indigestion]

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:11 pm

The Komen Kontroversy

The Komen Foundation (Walk for the Cure), which raises funds ostensibly for breast cancer research, has diverted funds to the nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. This is not breaking news -- some Komen affiliates have donated more than $3 million to Planned Parenthood since 2003.

For the record, most of the funds raised by Komen Foundation are used for legitimate research into breast cancer prevention and cure, and any organization as large as Komen is going to have affiliates who make decisions that offend the national organization's mandate, mission and policies.

For example, I serve as an executive member with a Boy Scouts of America Council, and a Scout Master of a local Troop. Among the thousands of BSA Troops across the country, there are a few malcontents who want to include homosexuals as Scout leaders. That position is clearly against the BSA's national policy and has been strongly condemned by the BSA, which is to say, there is no reason to discontinue support for this great organization.

In the case of Komen, however, the national foundation board is now defending the diversion of its funds to abortion providers. Because most people who support Komen do so under the assumption their support was used for breast cancer research, Komen Foundation's endorsement of this diversion, rather than condemnation of the same, is inexcusable.

Not only is Komen Foundation defending "pink" donations to abortion providers, they are attempting to debunk the relationship between abortion and breast cancer, devoting a special section on their website listing selective studies supporting that position. (Apparently they read AlGore's "human-induced global warming" playbook.)

However, according to Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast surgical oncologist and co-director of the Steeplechase Cancer Center, "29 out of 38 worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased risk of breast cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an abortion." The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer concludes, "It cannot be said that all women who have breast cancer have had abortions. Similarly, not all women who have had abortions will get breast cancer. Nevertheless, abortion is the most preventable risk factor for breast cancer."

Typical of the research findings is the International Journal of Epidemiology study which concluded, "Odds ratios were significantly elevated among those with an induced abortion."

Regarding efforts to cover up the abortion/breast cancer risk, Dr. Edward Furton, Editor of Ethics and Medics, writes, "There is a great deal at stake here. When the public learns that the causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been downplayed by the scientific community -- for reasons that are ideological rather than factual -- the feeling of betrayal will be strong."

My point here is not to argue the efficacy of abortion as a causal factor in breast cancer, but to suggest that Komen Foundation's board should conclude, as a matter of policy, that raising money for breast cancer research and diverting any of it to abortion providers is patently wrong. ... ntroversy/

[comment - was it ever about cancer?]

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:40 am


St. Charles, MO – March 1, 2011 – Sixty miles in one direction can take you many places. But a group of dedicated staff members from a St. Charles business, RLK & Associates, Inc., calling their group “Save the Cupcakes” has joined thousands of breast cancer supporters in preparing for the 2011 Susan G. Komen Chicago 3-Day for the Cure® because 60 miles can take them closer to finding a cure. After months of training and fundraising, participants will walk 60 miles during three days to raise awareness and funds for breast cancer research and community-based breast health and education programs.

“This is my first year participating in the Susan G. Komen 3-Day for the Cure,” said Chrissy Whitley, one member of Save the Cupcakes. “Though I’m sure walking 60 miles will be challenging, it’s the very least I can do in an effort to make an impact on the breast cancer movement.”

In 2007 this horrible disease struck home as one of our RLK family members received her devastating diagnosis. In the years that have followed her diagnosis, being able to witness first hand the strength and courage she displayed while fighting through her treatments has made such an impact on us at RLK. We want to do all we can to end this horrible, horrible disease.

Each walker is supported by coaches and online assistance aiding in all aspects of training and fundraising. Clinics, meetings, training walks, teams and buddy walkers provide ongoing encouragement as well.

The Susan G. Komen Chicago 3-Day for the Cure starts on Friday morning, August 5th, 2011 and ends with the Closing Ceremony on Sunday afternoon, August 8th, 2011. Walkers cover about 20 miles a day, traveling at their own pace. Hundreds of volunteer crew members support the walkers through the three-day journey providing meals, refreshments and snack stops, gear transport, hot showers, portable restrooms, safety on the streets and 24-hour medical services. The Komen 3-Day for the Cure is the greatest distance you can go in the fight against breast cancer.

More than 1.4 million women will be diagnosed with breast cancer globally each year. To help RLK & Associates, Inc. Save the Cupcakes reach their goal by making a donation or joining their team, please visit Save the "Cup"cakes at ... fr_id=1611. To learn how to participate or volunteer with the Susan G. Komen 3-Day for the Cure, visit or call 800-996-3DAY. ... 1110285493

[comment - I'm guessing that clever marketing and business have overtaken the original focus]

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:01 am

An In-Depth Interview With Nancy Brinker, Founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen for the Cure

Today, March 8, is International Women's Day, and in advance of the occasion, I conducted an in-depth interview with Nancy Brinker, Founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen for the Cure. We discussed the evolution of the organization, the state of breast cancer today and the current gaps in research, her role as Goodwill Ambassador for Cancer Control at the World Health Organization, how Susan G. Komen built massive corporate engagement, and the use and role of "pink" to galvanize a global movement to end breast cancer.

Below is an excerpt of the interview, while the full 3500-word discussion can be found here.

Rahim Kanani: Let's start with the founding of the organization in 1982. What have been some of the major milestones and achievements since inception, nearly 30 years ago?

Ambassador Brinker: Actually, let me take you back 50 years, when I was a little girl growing up in Peoria, Illinois. I watched how America organized around polio -- a deadly killer. Everyone was involved in the war against it. Science was funded. Teachers, parents, people from all walks of life, were mobilized, and this was long before the Internet. When the vaccine was announced, it was as if a war had ended -- church bells rang and schools closed. That was my early childhood education of how a society could deal with a deadly disease.

Cancer is different, but we had almost the same kind of fear and lack of knowledge about the disease when my sister, Suzy, was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1977. There were people in America who honestly thought that cancer was contagious. They would cross the street when they saw Suzy coming. No one discussed cancer, much less breast cancer. Women were dealing in a vacuum -- no cell phones, no Internet, no 1-800 numbers, no patient advocacy.

One generation later, we talk about breast cancer. Susan G. Komen has funded almost $2 billion for education, awareness, advocacy and research. And the progress has been incremental -- but stunningly incremental. Five-year survival rates improving from 74 percent to 98 percent for early-stage disease; death rates reduced by 31 percent in 20 years. More knowledge about the disease and more treatments.

It's nowhere near what I had hoped to see when I started, but it is vastly, vastly improved, and we've done all of this with grassroots and corporate support. We're now reaching out to large donors and foundations, asking them to invest in the transformational work that we're doing for breast cancer -- to say "Komen, you're doing great work. We want to invest in you to move the needle this way," and provide the funds that will help us make even more progress.

How wonderful would it be to see someone, one private investor, write a large check for breast cancer research? I'd love to see more women in positions of corporate leadership challenging each other to raise the bar for funding awareness and treatment of women's cancers. That's what we really need to see.

Rahim Kanani: Is it possible that the perception of how well-known the organization is overshadows the urgency of giving because it looks as though you are extremely well-funded?

Ambassador Brinker: Perhaps. And yet look at the enormity and the cost to develop treatments. And it's not just research -- research is how we lead. Susan G. Komen is the largest funder of breast cancer research but we're also the largest supporter of community programs. We set up the infrastructure in thousands of communities in America through our Affiliate network. We partner with 1,900 organizations delivering services, screening, education, financial aid and social support. And we're doing the same thing internationally -- we are well engaged in more than 50 countries.

We're probably the only breast cancer organization that believes that we need to raise money to support research and to support the community. Because if you don't steward what you know and you don't do it throughout a population, going back to the polio model, what have you really done?

Rahim Kanani: Since the organization has done such an incredible job of both building awareness and advancing the science, how would you characterize that relationship? Has the increased awareness pushed for scientific advancement, or has the scientific advancement generated increased awareness?

Ambassador Brinker: I think it's both. You can't have one without the other, but I will tell you that first, people must be aware. There was hardly anyone who understood, when I started, what a huge problem breast cancer was becoming -- that all cancer was becoming. That awareness helped bond the community around funding the science.

Rahim Kanani: What is it about breast cancer that we still don't know?

Ambassador Brinker: We still don't fully understand questions like: How does cancer evolve from normal breast tissue? What are the progenitors? What are the factors that create a rapid growth? What is the not-fully-understood reaction between hormones and breast cancer? What happens to a tumor in a human body, not just what happens, but how does it happen? Why are certain forms more prevalent in some ethnic groups? Prevention -- is it about substances that we ingest or are exposed to, or is it genetic?

We're working very hard on all of those questions -- we're most excited about biomarkers, PARP inhibitors and prevention.

Rahim Kanani: What role does the organization's brand and identity -- pink -- play in shaping and furthering this global movement?

Ambassador Brinker: At the time I started this all I knew was pink was my sister's favorite color, and in my book Promise Me there's a picture of my sister as homecoming queen, with a pink sash. Those were our first colors because I knew she loved pink. Pink is a feminine and strong color.

We're sometimes criticized for pink, but in our minds, there's not enough pink when someone dies of breast cancer every 69 seconds somewhere in the world. There's not enough awareness when women don't even know their own risks. We need to have a lot more pink, so get ready. It's not going anywhere. It's only going to get bigger. If you don't like it, help us do something about it.

Rahim Kanani: Expand a bit about your role as the Goodwill Ambassador for Cancer Control at the World Health Organization (WHO).

Ambassador Brinker: Margaret Chan (WHO Director-General) asked me if I would take this role and I agreed. We at Susan G. Komen deal with heads of other countries developing global strategies, and we're very focused on low resource countries. Most of these low resource countries don't even have cancer registries, so they don't even know who dies of the disease. I had worked as Ambassador to Hungary and as U.S. Chief of Protocol -- I had the opportunity to talk with world leaders and many did not recognize cancer as a major issue; they thought of it as a rich person's disease and a wasting disease.

Many low resource countries are afraid to take on another big killer because of the economic impact, but they need to, because 70 percent of the new cancer cases are happening in countries that have less than 5 percent of the resources.

We want to build on existing health platforms in those countries to develop effective education and screening and treatment programs. We know what to do. Again, it's the will to get it done. Women's health must be on the working agendas of the G20, the G8, and the United Nations.

Rahim Kanani: How would you characterize the new White House agenda towards this end?

Ambassador Brinker: We want to work as closely as we can with the White House. Our concern is making sure that in the cancer space, we are able to maintain the ground that we have fought for so hard and not let people slip backwards. I'm very concerned about the burdens being placed on state governments, and our very strong, very vocal Komen Advocacy Alliance is ready to fight for screening and treatment programs in all 50 states.

Rahim Kanani: Going back to Komen as a movement and a foundation, how have you been so successful in building corporate engagement?

Ambassador Brinker: Our partners are essential members of the Komen family who help us raise the funds but -- very importantly -- help with education and awareness. We don't just take money and say, 'Oh, great. Now just put our ribbon on your product.' Our partners are asked to undertake an obligation to educate their employees and their customers -- whoever they can reach. And they do. So when some groups criticize corporate involvement, my answer to them is, 'We are witnessing a unique paradigm in our society, that is, the private sector tackling a very serious disease and creating a more interested and engaged consumer public as a result.'

Rahim Kanani: What is your vision for Komen over the next years?

Ambassador Brinker: I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Other people are now talking about their year 2020 plans. About five years ago we started talking about 2020 and when I came back as CEO we formalized our 2020 program.

We are committing to cure at least one form of lethal breast cancer within the decade, and cure is a word that we need to break down into long-term survival, long-term management with quality of life. In advocacy, we will fight for our Susan G. Komen Bill of Rights to ensure access to cancer care for all women.

And globally, we're going to bring this mission to women everywhere. We're going to elevate the issue of cancer. We're going to develop and work to deliver screening and early treatment and we're going to affect thinking all over the world. That is our commitment.

Rahim Kanani: What do you think is least understood about Susan G. Komen?

Ambassador Brinker: A few things. The first might be that we're perceived as too big, too much like a business. This recent trademark issue, for example, has led to a lot of misunderstanding. We do have trademarks. Now why do we do that? We were named one of the two most trusted charities in America last year. When we put that Susan G. Komen for the Cure mark on a program, it tells people you can trust that this program is being done according to Komen's standards. This is very important and it is what our donors require of us.

People don't understand that we don't put small charities out of business. We don't want to do anything of the kind, and we work with most of them so that people don't confuse us.

Rahim Kanani: So this is primarily about maintaining the integrity of the brand?

Ambassador Brinker: We are maintaining the integrity of who we are and what we hold sacred and that is integrity, honesty, trying very hard to deliver what we have promised. We have never let the public down yet in what we have promised and we will not ... more. ... 32487.html

[comment - Komen is run very much as a business. In modern society, this seen as a valid way to do things even for a cancer organisation. Yet is it a better, more effective way? This organisation cannot claim the success from 5 year survival rates. I am sure while they have had successes, but what they can claim as theirs for all the millions spent? I believe that putting out better information regarding cancer, supporting prevention and stop claiming to find a cure for cancer would have led to better results - but wait this approach would have not raised as much money and been such an organisational success. Which leads to a difficult question - is this organisation part of the solution or the problem? My understanding is that while survival rates are improving cancer rates are still increasing, hardly a success story]

User avatar
Registered User
Posts: 18130
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kenobewan » Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:17 am

Executive wages blow out health reform cost

EXECUTIVE wages bills will blow out by more than half under the federal health reforms, despite a commitment that the structural changes would not increase bureaucracy in the state.

Analysis by the Herald shows the wages bill for health network chief executives alone will rise by as much as 74 per cent under the new scheme, based on figures obtained from NSW Health.

Of the 11 chief executives employed under the previous system, only one did not find a senior role inside the reformed health bureaucracy.

Three were re-employed to head a new layer of bureaucracy - on the second-highest executive wage level - orchestrating hospital ''clusters'' across the state.

Another 13 new chief executives were employed to manage local health networks on salaries of up to $312,850 a year.

But the Keneally government maintains there will be no increase in bureaucracy under the reforms.

''In that heads of agreement … let me say this: it makes very clear, no increase in bureaucracy,'' Ms Keneally said during the Herald's election debate last month. ''It's part of the agreement.''

But despite the increases in the executive wages bill, concerns have been raised that attempts to find bureaucratic efficiencies in a new layer of management will take power away from local hospitals - the opposite of what the reforms were meant to achieve.

A NSW Health spokesman said there would be no rise in spending on executive wages, but a breakdown of figures shows the minimum increase for chief executives would take the bill from $2.6 million to $4.6 million. The largest possible increase would see the bill grow to $5.2 million.

The spokesman conceded the duplication of administrative positions caused by the increase in health networks would require 1320 more full-time staff and an additional administrative cost of at least $95 million if all networks were staffed as they were under the previous system.

But he said savings had been found in three massive clinical support divisions - or ''clusters'' - that will control things such as risk management and statutory reporting and share bureaucrats.

The NSW president of the Australian Medical Association, Michael Steiner, said local boards were ''worth the cost of a higher number of administrators'' but only if they involved medical staff in decision-making.

The association wants the ''clusters'' abolished, saying they would add a layer of bureaucracy and take power from local boards.

''There is no need for an extra layer in between,'' Dr Steiner said. ''While the stated intent of having a cluster structure is to provide guidance and advice to local health services, we have no doubt that they will quickly become directive and result in a drift back to the discredited model of centralised decision-making.''

A spokeswoman for the Health Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, said wages bills were a departmental matter but noted health reform legislation passed the lower house without opposition from the Liberal Party.

''Health reform is about increasing services, not back-office staff,'' she said. ''We are seeking to retain the skills and expertise of the people we already have working in the health system so there will be no overall increase in the numbers of administrative staff.''

The opposition health spokeswoman, Jillian Skinner, has criticised the system but has not committed to any significant changes, although she foreshadowed possible abolition of the clusters. ''The NSW Labor leader is using the cover of the federal health agreement to sign new bureaucrats up to long-term contracts to 'work' in extra layers of red tape,'' she said.

''This is Labor's idea of reform: more bureaucrats and more layers of red tape between patients and health resources.''

The national health reform agreement signed by premiers in February stated services ''should be delivered with no net increase in bureaucracy'' and ''should be established by states within current … staffing levels''.

But the agreement makes no comment on the cost resulting from an inevitable increase in senior bureaucrats. ... 1c0ll.html

[comment - I post this to highlight how much inefficiency there is in the health system. Its a similar story with these charities, especially the larger ones. Thats only going to change if prevention and lifestyle become the focus. We can prevent 80% of chronic disease and a smaller more efficient healthcare could result if we choose. There is no confidence in changing people's behaviour so we go on building bigger health systems - where will it end - only if we choose to end it]

Post Reply