New Komen Perfume “Promise Me”—Pretty Toxic When You Read the Ingredient List
Would you buy a pretty bottle of perfume if you were promised that part of your purchase price would go to a well-known cancer organization, supposedly dedicated to helping find a cure for breast cancer? If you or someone in your life has been touched by cancer, you may be tempted to do so.
I’m here to warn you to be careful.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure, founded by Nancy G. Brinker, has done a lot to raise awareness about breast cancer over the years. I’ve admired their dedication to fund-raising activities and to getting helpful information out to the newly diagnosed. Their recent money-raising endeavor, however, severely disappoints me.
Recently, the organization teamed up with consumer products and distribution company TPR Holdings LLC to develop and launch a new product line called “Promise Me,” a proprietary fragrance. The website calls it “the scent of inspiration,” and offers a floral fragrance, a lighter combination fragrance, and two gift sets that include perfume, body wash, shower gel, body lotion, and even a keepsake bracelet. With each of the gift sets you get a free copy of the book Promise Me, which tells the story of the two sisters on which the “non-profit” organization was founded.
This all sounds great at first blush, but there are a few things going on here that steal a bit of the sheen from the glass bottle. First, these products are not cheap. We’re talking $59 for one bottle of perfume, $65 for one of the gift sets. Now I don’t have access to the company’s ledger sheets, but I do know Komen is getting only 13.5 percent of the proceeds. Thirteen-and-a-half percent of $59 is $7.97. Not a lot. Then you have to consider that a good chunk of that money goes to the organization’s expenses (uneasypink.com estimates 90 percent!), so that leaves even less going to research. Not much of a bargain for those more interested in finding a cure for breast cancer than in trying a new fragrance.
Here’s what upsets me the most. This is perfume. Not organic fragrance. Not something safe for those touched by cancer (or anyone, really). Not something nice for people going through chemotherapy who often become very chemically sensitive. Regular good-old chemical-based fragrance. It’s supposed to evoke positive energy, hope, and love, but what I’m afraid of is it will evoke more toxic overload in those unfortunate bodies assaulted with it.
The website lists top notes of mandarin, bergamot, and blood orange, and mid notes of pink peony, rosewood, and wild orchid. All lovely sounding, but let’s look at the ingredient list. The Promise Me website doesn’t list it, but fortunately the HSN shopping page does:
Alcohol Denat. (SD Alcohol 40-B), Parfum (Fragrance), Aqua (Water), Butylphenyl Methylpropional, Limonene, Benzophenone-3, Citonellol, Benzyl Salicylate, Hydroxyisohexyl 3-Cyclohexene Carboxaldehyde, Coumarin, Alpha-Isomethyl Ionone, Linalool, Citral, Ci 17200 (Red 33), Ci 60730 (Violet 2).
Doesn’t sound so pretty, does it? Kim Irish at Think Before You Pink points out that coumarin is rated a moderate hazard on the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Cosmetic Database, with limited evidence of carcinogenic activity in animal studies. Benzyl salicylate is classified as toxic to aquatic environments. Benzophenone-3, or oxybenzone as it’s otherwise known, can increase photosensitivity, create free radicals in the skin that can attack DNA, and has been linked to eczema. It’s known to penetrate the skin and accumulate in the body, and some studies have linked oxybenzone in sunscreens to a possible increased risk of malignant skin cancer. Butylphenyl methylpropional has been shown to cause irritation and allergic reactions in many people.
This is enough to make me just shake my head. Why would an organization as large and visible as Komen put out a perfume like this, with potential carcinogens, dyes, and let’s not forget the mysterious “fragrance” item, which of course could hide all sorts of additional potentially toxic chemicals protected by trade secret. Maybe selling safe, enjoyable products for money that goes toward genuine cancer research could be a good idea, but this product isn’t safe, and very little money is going to research.
What do you think of this latest move by Susan Komen for the Cure? Please share your thoughts.
Britta,
Komen’s “venture” into the perfume industry is something so deviously ironic and upside down a good fiction writer would be hard pressed to make it up.
It’s a small example of what is wrong with the organization from the top down.
Branding ‘breast cancer’ to sell perfume? And buckets of chicken? It’s time for this kind of nonprofit management to go by the wayside. Impossible to think that the Komen board members actually sat in a meeting and said, “HEY HO YO” great idea!
But don’t get me started.
Thanks for your post, Britta. You’ll find great information and commentary on what’s gone wrong with the cure via @pinkribbonblues @ccchronicles @uneasypink and Nancy’s Point, to name a few.
I think it’s deplorable for various reasons which I recently also posted about. Thank you for speaking up about this important topic. We shouldn’t allow Komen to get away with such things.
http://nancyspoint.com/its-just-a-little-bottle-of-perfume-or-is-it/
Always follow the money,,,,,and this needs to be investigated just how much goes back to the non profit and how much is taken in salaries. My suspicions have been aroused for some time. Thank you for the information and the fact that people are watching out for the contributors to her foundation.
You’re so right. This is bad decision-making from the top down. Komen’s leadership is not thinking beyond the brand. At this point, pink fatique has taken hold anyway. How much life do they think this tired old message has left in it anyway?
Who suffers from these bad decisions? Everyone.
The breast cancer epidemic has no chance of ending with huge amounts of money being siphoned away from innovative research and toward fund-raising, superficial education, advertising, and feel-good publicity stunts. Dominating the fund-raising market leaves people with other chronic illnesses left fo fend for themselves. Progress has been stalled in terms of prevention as well as understanding metastasis. To market ANYTHING that has the slightest potential to add to the carcinogenic burden… adds insult to injury.
It must stop. The exploitation of the public’s good will can only hurt them in the long run.
Thanks for getting the word out!
Why indeed Britta???? Because it’s a moneymaker, that ultimately has nothing to do with the realities of preventing, living with, dying of or curing breast cancer. How could it?
Thank you Britta for shedding light on this hypocrisy. Unfortunately, breast cancer has become big business, and the big cancer charities (and their big corporate sponsors) have lost sight of (or don’t want to talk about) the importance of preventing cancer in the first place. For more on this topic, see my book, “Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry,” and chapter six, entitled “Pinkwashing.” It’s truly disturbing!
Thanks,
Stacy Malkan
http://www.notjustaprettyface.org
Wow. Thanks for sharing.Totally agree with Stacy. Greenwashing and Pinkwashing are big biz these days. We all need to stick together to identify products that are safe and effective to use on ourselves and our families.
That was the first thought I had when I heard about the perfume. I even commented on someone’s blog that I bet it’s toxic, too. I have contacted our local affiliate when I read a post on Komen that BPA in water bottles actually isn’t bad for you. That, I assumed, was because the massive amounts of water bottles they sell and give away at races aren’t BPA-free. After all, they are cheaper …
Thank you for educating your readers that we need to be more conscious about what we put in and on our bodies. And to think first before you buy something simply because it has a pink ribbon on it. Komen does a lot of great things, but they need to look closely about changing some of their practices.
no shame! thank you for making me aware of this.
Wow Britta, that is so completely backwards and wrong! It really is disappointing to learn that a company you would assume would have such good intentions would be taking so much advantage of those who really do want to make a difference and help. Thank you for such an eye opening post!
There has been much discussion about this on our blogs, and I so appreciate your finding the ingredient list. Their statement on BPA is inaccurate and shameful. It is belligerent to create a perfume, adding yet another toxin to the environment. Apparently our donations didn’t provide enough funds for their researchers to review the proliferation of studies about the common adverse effects of fragrances. They have been shown to exacerbate asthmatic symptoms, including airway obstruction, chest tightening and wheezing. They are a common cause of cosmetic allergic contact dermatitis, and have even resulted in anaphylactic shock. Many workplaces and medical offices limit or discourage their use. Thank you to everyone here for voicing your concern, and thanks, Britta, for increasing awareness.
[...] an interesting article regarding the new Susan G. Komen perfume, Promise Me, the toxins it contains, and how these toxins are [...]
This is so sad! She is now giving into the industry that killed us! Shame on Her! It is all about the monies now, not the cure!