I hear all the time about “pinkwashing” and how not every item that is sold in a pink package helps cancer victims. Does it really have to? Pink ribbons for breast cancer doesn’t mean that use of that entire color is banned for anything else. What if the product designer just happens to like the color?
It’s irrelevant anyway, because often “a portion of proceeds goes to cancer research” just means a hundredth of a percent or something. So basically, you already have things in pink packaging that don’t have anything to do with cancer research.
Might just be Barbie stuff.
Never heard of pink packaging. Maybe you are confusing it with the Product(RED) campaign that supports the fight against Aids. Partners include Apple, Coca-Cola, Beats, Starbucks, BOA, Bed Bath & Beyond, etc.
The color pink existed before the current breast cancer campaign. Does pink packaging unassociated with breast cancer exist? Of course. Women’s stuff has been featured for quite a while, for example. Cf. barrettes for girls. Do NFL players wear pink unassociated with breast cancer? Not in public.
I highly doubt that this pink shotgun has any of its profits going toward cancer research.
ETA: where’s the debate here?
No, pink packaging does not mean any money goes to cancer research.
No, it should not be a requirement that money go to cancer research in order for a product to be in pink.
If you want to give to cancer research don’t do it by purchasing a pink-packaged product, just a write a check to your chosen charity and be done with it. The charity gets more of the money that way, and you can use the donation as a tax deduction. Much better all around.
I got your pink package right here.
I think you misunderstand what people are criticizing with pinkwashing. The issues are usually the following:
[ol]
[li]Trumpeting how generous the company is and how much good they are doing while donating very little to breast cancer research[/li][li]Promoting how they are big fighters against breast cancer while making products that can contribute to cancer[/li][/ol]
I could make a perfume called Pink Rose, and have it in a pink bottle with pink packaging, and I don’t think anyone would have an issue with it. There’s nothing inherently wrong with making a product pink, or the packaging pink. But if I also have a pink ribbon on it and claim that some proceeds go to breast cancer funds, then some people will look into that and see if it’s a decent or miniscule amount, and I might get some criticism if it’s a very small amount. And if it turns out that I have chemicals in the perfume that are likely carcinogens, then I will definitely be getting criticism.
Pink packaging does not by itself mean anything to do with “breast cancer awareness.”
However, products not normally found in pink (batteries, household cleaners, motor oil, no pest strips, cereal etc.) that suddenly appear in a pink package in the fall are almost certainly (1) genuine supporters of the vague notion that giving a wee bit of profits to “breast cancer research” is something consumers will respond to; (2) cynical marketers who believe the same thing; or (3) really cynical opportunists who know that many people will assume their “holiday pink” package means that consumers will think they’re caring supporters etc.