AMBER ALERT: Waxahachie Police Searching For Missing 17-Year-Old Girl | DETAILS

Komen Foundation’s Perfume Proves Controversial

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) –  Pink ribbons adorn everything from Airplanes to yogurt. But when the Susan G. Komen Foundation endorsed “Promise Me,” a perfume, someone raised a stink.

“We feel that every precaution should be taken,” said Karuna Jagger.

Jagger is the Executive Director of Breast Cancer Action, a National, California Based advocacy group.

“It contains a number of chemicals of concern that are not listed on the label,” Jagger said.

Jagger had an independent lab test the perform. The results revealed Galaxolide, a synthetic musk, and trace amounts of Oxibenzone, which is commonly found in sunscreen.

The two ingredients, she said, are known to interfere with hormones.

“In a situation where not enough is known about what is putting women at risk and why are so many women getting breast cancer and dying of breast cancer we feel that every precaution should be taken,” she said.

“I saw it on Komen’s website and I purchased it,” Koco Powell said.

Powell, who was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer in March, isn’t worried about the lab results.

“Something so small like that?” she asked.

She thinks the action group should focus efforts elewhere.

“Let’s use that money to find a cure. Let’s figure out why people are getting breast cancer in the first place. It’s not because of perfume. It’s not.” Powell said..

The Komen foundation issued a statement, saying:

“TPR Holdings, the distributor of the perfume, has assured us that the perfume’s ingredients were analyzed before production and that its ingredients are well within fragrance and cosmetic industry standards.”

To eliminate all doubt, Komen said it would change the formula next year. Breast Cancer Action doesn’t like that.

They want all bottles of the perfume, with the exiting formula inside, taken off the market.

  • Komen Foundation?s Perfume Proves Controversial — Me and the Chicks

    […] the Susan G. Komen Foundation endorsed “Promise Me,” a perfume, someone raised a stink. More from:… […]

  • darrell

    i know that this organization does a lot of great things. raises huge amounts of money that some of supports great programs. over the years however it has evolved from the great charity it began as into just another greedy, power hungry, politicized machine that is more self serving than public serving. i just cant support a PAC posing as a charity.

  • It's All A Ruse

    Typical. I knew this would come forth someday. I saw this organization putting their logo on everything,and that raised a red flag with me. It’s so sad that organizations of virtuous means are twisted and perverted years later. Hey, have you seen the Pink Ribbon Agent Orange Herbicide? Just kidding.

    • NiteNurse

      I totally agree. I’ve seen way too many pink ribbon related products. I question if the company or the charity benefits more, my feelings are the company that sells the product.

  • HELLO?!?!?!?!?

    Most, if not all, nonprofits are clusterf–ks. Whether it’s this organization, the Boy Scouts, The United Way, or something as innocuous as the Bowling Proprietors Association of America, they”re mostly ran by a conglomeration of clueless morons with third-class educations.

    • Wheeler

      The Susan B. Koman foundation is run by a group, headed by Susan’s sister, Nancy Brinker, whom I suspect has more class and education than you, judging from your post. While I believe that the Foundation has grown into an industry and no longer support it, to call the whole non-profit industry an educationally-illiterate term is, well, stupid.

      I’m a survivor of a “non-celebrity” cancer. I would like to see more of this money going to smaller research groups for all cancers. Breast cancer is probably the most curable cancer – almost 100% of Stage 1 patients survive. The money is better used in other research.

      But Koman didn’t get where it is by being clueless or uneducated.

      • jack

        If you really support this organization you should learn how to spell it. It’s KOMEN, not KOMAN>

      • Ange

        Wheeler I’m glad you are a survivor and thanks for your intelligent comments. Considering your progress, I’m sure Ms. Komen’s last concern would be the spelling of her name.

      • ANGE

        The companies “DONATE” those products. Question: What causes a group of people with no proof of harm, to make demands on a proven charity? I can see it if they had a ligitimate grip, but they don’t! This charity has raised millions for cancer research. Even if someone made money or gained polically, does that eradicate the cause? I believe in the big picture until proven otherwise.

  • C. H. Dalton

    This charity has turned into a bussiness. Go to give .org and you will see how much money they make and spend.

  • Not Afraid

    So, how many people are aware that any ingredient in perfume is regulated by the Food & Drug Administration the same way they regulate our food? It goes on the skin, and therefore there are limited ingredients allowed that are supposedly proven safe. That is why companies can patent the NAME of a fragrance only, not the ingredients. Did you also know that to ship a perfume is considered a “hazardous” material because it often contains alcohol that can be flammable?

  • Ralph

    How about an editor, please. Someone to do a spell check?

  • M. E. Redith

    Forget the perfume. I believe a bigger issue would be, where does all the money actually go!!!!! This foundation brings in boatloads of dollars. Is it all spent on pink socks and jocks for NFL players?? How much goes to real research, for support groups, care assistance, things that would really benefit those who have this disease? And, how much is spent to keep the name Susan G. Komen in the news? Who are the people that benefit monetarily?

    Yes, there is an odor, and it is beginning to stink!!! Follow the money!!!

  • darrell

    use of funds.
    In the 2009-2010 fiscal year, ending March 31, 2010, Komen reported approximately US $400 million in earnings. Of this, $365 million (91.3 percent) came from contributions from the public, including donations, sponsorships, race entry fees, and contributed goods and services. Approximately $35 million (8.8 percent) came from interest and dividends and gains on investments.[24]

    That same fiscal year, Komen reported approximately US $360 million in expenses. $283.2 million of this went towards program services: $75.4 million (20.9 percent of total expenditure) went to research, $140.8 million (39.1 percent) went to public health education, $46.9 million (13 percent) went to health screening services, and $20.1 million (5.6 percent) went to treatment services. The other $76.8 million went to supporting services, including $36.1 million (10 percent of total expenditure) toward fund-raising costs and $40.6 million (11.3 percent) toward general and administrative costs.

  • M.E. Redith

    Believe me, I do understand that there is a great deal of good that is done by this organization, but there also appears to be a huge amount of money which is not readily accounted for. What are “supporting services”???

    I understand the terms “fund-raising costs” and “general and administration costs”. All of those costs make up approx 42% of the $365 million from contributions, with “supporting services” totaling 21% or 50% of all costs of doing business.

blog comments powered by Disqus
The Taz Show

Listen Live