New green con: 'Pinkwashing'

From an Environmental Justice press release: “Companies that try to increase sales of their products by adopting the color pink and pink ribbons to imply that they support breast cancer research—a practice called pinkwashing—but at the same time permit the use of chemicals shown to cause cancer are committing a form of social injustice against women, according to a thought-provoking article in Environmental Justice, a peer-reviewed journal published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.”

Of course, since no chemicals in consumer products have been shown to cause breast cancer, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. may want to get some new peer-reviewers.

5 thoughts on “New green con: 'Pinkwashing'”

  1. “The insistence by industry-funded
    scientists that low doses of toxic chemicals pose no hazard,
    and the current U.S. laws that place the burden of
    proof on individuals rather than on chemical manufacturers
    producing the chemicals must come to light, and be
    changed.” – WOW. Now we have to abandon reason (dose makes the poison) for madness (of the precautionary principle.)

  2. There is a periodical called “Environmental Justice”? It has “peer reviewers?” Pretty clear-headed and objective – if you’ve already taken the blue pill. OMG!! Delusion goes viral.

  3. It’s not just “The dose makes the poison” that we have to abandon, it’s the much more fundamental “The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive” principle we have to abandon.

    If they have their way, manufacturers will be forced to accomplish the impossible task of proving the negative that their products _don’t_ cause harm.

  4. Oh good grief, Stacy Malkan and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. They are behind a bill (Safe Cosmetics Act 2011) just submitted on June 24th. They are pushing their “green” agenda. I’m shamelessly begging you: please read this bill that is supposed to empower the FDA and bring us safer cosmetics. It doesn’t. Personal Care Truth or Scare website shares their views on how this is going to hurt more than help.

  5. Not to mention those “toxic” chemicals, a/k/a pharaceuticals, used to treat cancer and other diseases. The “precautionary principle” is an intellectual nullity and ought to be dispatched post haste – if only industry leadership had the cojones to do so instead of playing at their apologetic version of capitalism.

Comments are closed.