1. Kennedy 1
Andrew Kennedy
Mr. Smith
Senior Thesis
April 29, 2014
The Exploitation of America in Fundraising for Breast Cancer Research
Cancer can take someone’s life quickly, sometimes being detected only weeks before
death. However, after more than 50 years of research into all types of cancer, the world seems
to be more lost than on a track towards progress. One of the most popular cancers, breast
cancer, has eluded scientists for years as men and women die every day of the disease.
Cancer is simply the uncontrollable division of abnormal cells in the body while breast cancer
is cancer that forms in the tissues of the breast (“What is Cancer”).
40,996 women in the United States alone went through the struggles, tears, and in the
end died of breast cancer in 2010 (CDC 2013). This number is alarming because breast
cancer has become a hot charity to give to and has been backed by research labs for over 50
years no. These women have gone through so much pain but this number only represents the
deaths of women and not the number of cases diagnosed. In 2010 there were 232,670 women
who were diagnosed with the disease (“Breast Cancer Key Statistics”).
What makes the United States so key in looking at breast cancer are the incidence
rates, the highest in the world. Caucasian women in the United States saw a peak of 145 cases
with 30 deaths per 100,000 women in 2000 and this number has stayed steady to this day
(Howlander). However, African American women saw a peak of 128 cases and 38 deaths per
100,000 in the same year (Howlander). Large incidence rates for a county of over 300 million
people.
These numbers are astounding due to all of the money that has been given to the effort
to stop this from happening. Breast Cancer has become an epidemic and it seems we are not

2. Kennedy 2
doing enough to stop its spread. Society pours money into awareness campaigns, non-profits,
government agencies, and schools in hopes of putting an end to this deathly disease while the
numbers do not produce what we hope for. Society must be approaching this disease wrong if
so many people are still dying.
The question of how to stop breast cancer has eluded millions of people in the last
twenty years where there has been an exponential increase in awareness of the disease. A
study of the largest breast cancer charity in America, Susan G Komen, provides an important
look into the exploitation of the American people and their sympathy for those who struggle
with breast cancer.
In the United States, one cannot go to the store, doctor’s office, car dealership, or
even church without seeing the infamous “pink ribbon” adorning products ranging from
shoes to cars to lotions to t-shirts and even to food. It is almost impossible to escape the
influence of that little ribbon in everyone’s life; but how many people actually know where it
came from or what it does? The ribbon itself does nothing, but the motivation behind buying
an item associated with a pink ribbon is simple: to feel like a difference has been made. What
many people forget to do is check the ingredients in the products the world buys or the
environmental effects these purchases will make.
Countless products are sold every year with a pink ribbon on them that have been
linked to causing breast cancer in both men and women (“Recombinant Bovine Growth
Hormone”; Nelson; “Fried Food Risks”). Many ask why this happens and the simple answer
is: money. Slapping a pink ribbon on a product has become more of a bottom line helper than
it is about making a difference. Companies do not check safety warnings about their products
and thus the world buys them thinking they are helping find a cure for breast cancer while
slowly getting the disease.
A controversial hormone has been used the past few decades called Recombinant

3. Kennedy 3
Bovine Growth Hormone, rGBH, a hormone which has been used by many prominent dairies
to push their cows to their limits to produce more milk (“Recombinant Bovine Growth
Hormone”). However, this hormone has been linked to causing higher levels of IGF-1,
insulin-like growth factor 1, in ones blood, a hormone which has been found to cause
cancerous tumors (“Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone”; “Recombinant Bovine
Somatropins”; Hankinson; Cromie). This cannot be looked over since many dairy giants have
partnered with Susan G Komen in the past.
One such company that has partnered with Komen is Yoplait, a mega power in the
dairy business in not only the United States but all across the world. Yoplait has used rGBH
laden milk in their products in the past and have run campaigns which donate funds to
Komen.
A campaign that has caught the attention of many is their lid initiative called “Save
Lids to Save Lives” where people all across the United States buy their yogurt, which has
pink ribbons on it, and then send the lids to Yoplait’s headquarters. For every lid sent,
Yoplait donates $.10 to Susan G Komen (King 24; Komen “General Mills”). This small
donation amounts to almost nothing when the math is done. If a person was to eat three
containers a day, an amount not often consumed, everyday for the 91 day fundraising period,
only $27.30 would be raised for the cure. Once postage is added in and the fact that 273
packages of yogurt were bought, the donation seems like a waste of both time and money.
Breast Cancer Action and Samantha King both suggest that those who save lids, need to
simply write a check for $30 rather than eat all of that yogurt to feel like they have made a
difference (Breast Cancer Action; King 27).
Yoplait stands as an example of how a company who sells products which cause
cancer can still have people buy their product to “support” breast cancer research. This
caught the attention of Breast Cancer Action, a group which monitors breast cancer

4. Kennedy 4
advertisement and demands transparency and accountability out of breast cancer charities,
who ran a campaign called “Put A Lid On It” which exposed Yoplait and has demanded
change for the past three years (Breast Cancer Action). In the end, Yoplait decided to cut ties
with all rBGH milk and have taken a cleaner approach to their business. Various companies
have even started labeling their milk and milk products with “Made with non-rBGH Milk”
This shows that once the world speaks out against an injustice, change will come.
However, milk products are not the only food Komen has sponsored that has been
linked to causing cancer. Kentucky Fried Chicken launched a campaign in 2010 with Susan
G Komen which pledged $.50 per bucket of chicken bought, with 25% of the donations going
to local Komen charities (Komen “KFC” ; Nelson). This strikes many as being a funny
collaboration since KFC is a fast food chain which serves food which has been proved to be
bad for one’s health.
Why would Komen want to partner with KFC? It comes down to the money like
every other time. KFC gave Komen $4,249,539 in 2010 which meant more money to use for
salaries, education of breast cancer, and other ways to ensure they were doing something but
not truly treating the disease (Komen “KFC”). Once again, this large donation came from a
fast food restaurant which serves cancer causing food. KFC uses reused oil to fry their foods
which has been linked to the formation of cancerous tumors (Nelson; “Fried Food Risks”).
Much like in the case of Yoplait, Breast Cancer Action started a campaign to stop this
collaboration, because of the harmful effects of fried chicken and the hypocrisy of selling
fried chicken to “help” end cancer, which was named “What the Cluck?” (Breast Cancer
Action). Kentucky Fried Chicken has since stopped collaborating with Komen due to the
overwhelming message that America was not ok with this.
This trend in partnerships between Susan G Komen and various food companies
cannot be overlooked and should be taken quite seriously when determining if it is better to

5. Kennedy 5
give to Komen or another charity. It would merit one reaction if these fundraisers were on a
small scale and did not affect many people but these are nationwide calls for money that are
advertised as support for a cure while giving the disease to the donors.
The act of being a “good Samaritan” for those with breast cancer has faded as the
years have gone on. National Breast Cancer Month, October, has now become a month many
dread because it is impossible to escape the money-driven advertisements asking society to
buy pink-ribbon laden products in hopes of finding a cure. Money has always dominated the
search for a cure and companies have quickly figured this out to seek profits, not progress.
A “hidden in fine print” sentence that some companies put on their posters is the
statement that their fundraiser will have a “max donation”. Yoplait has already been
mentioned in the hypocrisy argument of breast cancer but the same campaign which stirred
questions about the ingredients of their products also caused a stir for the “max donation”
they implemented. The $.10 campaign they ran was capped at $1.5 million and once they met
this goal, the public was not informed (Komen “General Mills”). This serves as just one of
many large affiliates with Komen who max their donations in an effort to not give too much
of their precious money to a supposed good cause.
Another large partner of Komen is the past few years has been Reebok, a shoe and
clothing company. Reebok ran a fundraiser for Komen in 2010 that sold pink ribbon shoes,
shirts, and wristbands among many other things (Breast Cancer Action). This donation was
capped at $750,000 and was meant to be for research while the customer base was never fully
aware of the max donation or when this donation had already been met (Breast Cancer
Action). Two large corporations, both with max donation schemes merited little to no press
coverage on the promotions being odd, but all of the coverage was on how great the
fundraisers were.
Not only do large companies get in on the max donation rule but small companies

6. Kennedy 6
also benefit from putting max donations in fine print at the bottom of the poster advertising
for the “good deed” that could be done. Dansko, a medium size clog company, ran a
campaign in 2010 which advertised the sales of their “pink ribbon clogs” as contributing to
Susan G Komen and that the purchase of a pair would go to make a change in breast cancer
(Dansko; Breast Cancer Action). However, what made this promotion different from many
others was that the max donation to Komen was set at a mere $25,000 and this sum was in no
way affected by the purchase of any clogs, no matter if one or one million clogs were sold
(Dansko; Breast Cancer Action).
This serves as a new level of what fundraising for breast cancer has become. Rather
than giving what people expect one to give, these companies cap their donations to save a
few bucks while earning a few brownie points with their customer base. Education is the key
to fixing this problem. If everyone in America knows where their money is going and keeps
companies accountable for their fundraisers, this situation could be prevented.
As mentioned earlier, Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone has been linked to
causing cancer, but there is more controversy behind this than meets the eye. Eli Lilly, a
mega-pharmaceutical in America is the sole producer of rGBH in the world. After buying the
rights to the hormone from Monsanto, Lilly began to sell the hormone under the name
“Posilac” and has been selling it to dairy farmers and companies who require massive
amounts of milk every year (Breast Cancer Action; Eli Lilly). Though people have called for
Eli Lilly to stop the production of rGBH, Lilly has continued their distribution of the
hormone, once again being traced back to the thought of losing money if they were to forgo
production of the hormone. However, what makes the situation worse is that Eli Lilly also
produces breast cancer prevention drugs as well as breast cancer treatment drugs (Eli Lilly).
The pharmaceutical produces the hormones that give someone the cancer as well as the drug
that treats them and then offers a drug to prevent the cancer from coming back. This full

7. Kennedy 7
cycle of production into profit brought in about $2,683,000,000 in 2008 alone (Breast Cancer
Action). This case serves as the perfect example of circular profits and getting people hooked
onto the product. This can only be stopped if Lilly itself decides to stop their production of
the drugs and hormones, and they will only change if they are called to or forced to.
Breast Cancer Action has run a campaign the past two years called “Milking Cancer”
which has called for a halt in the production of rBGH by Eli Lilly (Breast Cancer Action).
However, change has not come yet. Since rBGH is only legal in the United States, this is not
a global problem but can only be changed if everyone becomes aware. Breast Cancer Action
hopes for Eli Lilly to listen, but no progress seems to have been made on getting Eli Lilly to
realize their destructive actions.
After looking at some of the products that have hindered the public’s view on breast
cancer charity partnerships, it is best to look at how these organizations spend the money they
do receive. A close look and comparison of Susan G Komen and Stand up to Cancer is
necessary to understand how these charities are run. On one side is the largest breast cancer
charity in America while the other is a newer charity that is run fundamentally different and
brings new approaches to the table.
The Entertainment Industry Foundation, EIF, created a non-profit called Stand Up to
Cancer, or SU2C in hopes of running their funds different than most others in an effort to
make greater change and possibly stand as an example of what America wants to see out of
their cancer charities. This foundation is run by celebrities who do not take pay checks but
have elected a CEO to oversee all business the charity has. Large partnerships with an
emphasis on participation from everyone has dominated their approach towards curing
cancer.
Susan G Komen, contrastingly, has been around since 1982 and has dominated the
breast cancer fundraising scene, one that has garnered large amounts per year. Over the years

8. Kennedy 8
they have given grants, education programs, benefited low income families in their fight
against breast cancer, and have organized nationwide fundraisers to raise awareness and
funds for breast cancer. Their non-profit has garnered national attention for their flashy
campaigns and bold slogans for the cure.
The main difference between these two organizations is their yearly intake of funds.
In 2012 the Entertainment Industry Foundation brought in $53,462,322 with most of this
coming from donations (United States Dept. Treasury “EIF”). On the other hand, Komen
brought in $146,321,937, once again with the majority of this coming through donations
(United States Dept. Treasury “Komen”). The difference of nearly $100 million truly sets
these two non-profits in different directions. Both do a good job of distributing their money to
research labs or education but an analysis of the specific amounts spent on each category
provides an important look at what makes these non-profits who they are.
Since these two organizations have such contrasting revenues, percentages are best to
look at since these will give some perspective on their priorities and how much they value
each aspect of the fight on breast cancer. Both non-profits give money towards education of
breast cancer. This is simply going to schools, churches, YMCAs, and other communities and
spreading the word about what breast cancer is, how to treat it, and giving options for those
who have breast cancer.
Komen wants to educate America on the issues of breast cancer. Most of their cycle
of education focuses on how Komen can help with the terrors of breast cancer. It can
sometimes seem like a self-promotion program in which Komen pleads for people to join
their movement, and give money to their cause. $64,057,427, or 43.8%, goes to “public
health education programs to increase the public’s awareness of breast cancer including,
among other things, detection and treatment” (United States Dept. Treasury “Komen”).
Komen reuses the same information at the same places every year so it may be questionable

9. Kennedy 9
if these programs produce favourable results or not.
The public is quite aware of breast cancer so this aspect might need a little of a budget
cut. Awareness of both detection and educating both men and women on how to know if they
have breast cancer should not take so much money, especially with today’s internet culture
where health tips and tests are at one’s fingertips.
However, the EIF appropriates their funds in a radical way, with most of their
expenditures on research. The EIF spent only $5,030,749, 9.4%, on a woman’s cancer
program which is the equivalent of Komen’s $64,057,427 program for education (United
States Dept. Treasury “EIF”; United States Dept. Treasury “Komen”). Komen’s focus on
educating the United States is far greater than the Entertainment Industry Foundation and
their focus on curing cancer with science, not education.
It is simple, America has been educated on these issues for years and their largest
breast cancer non-profit is still spending almost half of their revenue on educating America.
The EIF focuses less on education because they recognize that the internet has made this
information easy to get. Changes need to be made if results are to be produced.
Beyond the education of the public on breast cancer, these two organizations run their
business side very differently. The salaries at Komen are much higher while the EIF gives
less and less in salaries to their employees. Most people when the donate are wanting their
money to go towards research, not to pay an employee to be the face of that no-profit and
wine and dine on the organization’s tab. This is why looking into the salaries of the two non-
profits are eye opening.
Take for example the true face of Komen, CEO Nancy G Brinker. The Komen Form
990, their public tax returns for the government, lists that Brinker was paid $584,635 in
salary, which does not include bonuses and the perks of being the face of Komen (United
States Dept. Treasury “Komen”). However, more is to be looked at on the form for Brinker

10. Kennedy 10
alone. The Form 990 reports that all of Brinker’s travel is required to be first class and this
racks up bills very quickly (United States Dept. Treasury “Komen”).
Not surprisingly, Brinker is not the only high paid official in Komen’s books. The
President Elizabeth Thompson received $632,513 in salary, which, again, does not include
the celebrity status she has with women who support Komen (United States Dept. Treasury
“Komen”). Thompson stepped down from her position in 2012 after some controversy so she
received a severance package from Komen. This severance package provided her with
another $266,900 to use now that she was not working with Komen (United States Dept.
Treasury “Komen”).
However, the story does not stop there. The other various employees of Komen raked
in a combined $2,995,871 in salary while picking up $123,018 in severance packages (United
States Dept. Treasury “Komen”). The scariest part of all of this is that donations to the
organization go to pay for these employees to work. All together these salries add up to
$25,941,318, or 17.7% of Komen’s revenue. This means that about 1 in 6 donations go
straight to the pockets of Komen’s employees, not research or education.
On the other hand, EIF paid their entire employee base $5,200,534 in all (United
States Dept. Treasury “EIF”; United States Dept. Treasury “Komen”). The difference in
salaries is almost funny to see. Stand up to Cancer gives 9.72% of their revenue to salary
while Komen gives 17.7%. Stand up to Cancer does not focus on compensation of workers
but compensation of researchers. The EIF simply runs their work in a totally different way
and the effects are evident in their salaries.
Though all of this information on Komen serves a purpose to look into how they have
taken advantage of Americans and their money, research still lies at the heart of what is
different between Susan G Komen and EIF’s Stand up to Cancer initiative.
It is common knowledge that to cure something whether it is a cold, the flu, or cancer,

11. Kennedy 11
research must be done to understand how the disease works so that we can better use our
resources to cure the disease. Research lied at the core of what scientists did in the early
1900s when they found penicillin and research lies at the heart of what scientists do every
year to find a vaccine for the yearly flu. If we do not research we do not progress, and if we
do not progress we will not find a cure to cancer, the goal we have set out to meet. Therefore,
it is obvious that money should be appropriated to research by non-profits who use the label
of “for the cure”.
Susan G Komen, however, does not abide by this logic. In 2012, $53,120,881 of
Komen’s funds went to “grants to other charitable organizations to support research and
clinical investigation of breast cancer”. For an organization which took in $146,321,937 in
2012, this is a low percentage, 36.3%, to be given to researching a cure for breast cancer
(United States Dept. Treasury “Komen”). Even small percentage changes of how much of
their funds go to research may mean the difference in finding a cure to breast cancer.
An eye opening fact about Komen’s distribution of funds to research is its
involvement in disparities research. Disparities (minority people groups) have 73% of their
research focused on “survivorship”, life after cancer (Komen “Breast Cancer Disparities”).
This is coupled with the fact that only 6% of Komen’s research funds go to prevention, while
27% goes to treatment and 13% to “survivorship” (Komen “2013 Research”). If only 6% of
their funds go to stopping breast cancer and over four times as much goes to treatment,
society should rethink their label of Komen as “for the cure”.
Biologists, chemists, psychologists, doctors, nurses, and every other profession which
deals with the effects of cancer runs on money and with less and less money going to these
groups, change cannot be expected. Komen shows in their budget that education of breast
cancer is more important in finding a cure than research is. Education does not make cancer
disappear and neither does paying employees ridiculous sums of money, paying for research

12. Kennedy 12
provides hope for those who either had breast cancer, have it currently, or will have it in the
future. It cannot be stressed enough that Komen does not appropriate funds correctly to best
“find a cure” for breast cancer.
The Entertainment Industry Foundation used $26,106,635, 49%, in their Stand Up to
Cancer Initiative in the form of two types of grants for research (United States Dept. Treasury
“EIF”). The first type of grant, Dream Team grants, give the opportunity to a large group of
cross-discipline teams made up of doctors, oncologists, immunologists, nurses, engineers,
business men, and many others the chance to collaborate to find new, cheap, innovative ways
to cure cancer or tumors in the hope of finding the overall cure (EIF “SU2C”). These are high
risk, high reward research projects which give the teams large sums of money with as little as
a few months to find answers to questions proposed by Stand up to Cancer. These target the
logic of how cancer works to better find solutions to the mysteries of medicine.
Another type of grant EIF gives out is the Innovative Research Grant, a large grant
given to early career scientists who are coming right off of innovative learning techniques
with a new batch of ideas and approaches to finding answers (EIF “SU2C”). These grants
give opportunities to those who often are overlooked by larger, older non-profits like Susan G
Komen and the American Cancer Society. The researchers, who receive funds from Stand up
to Cancer, know that if results are not produced, the EIF will find new people to give grants
to.
The Entertainment Industry Foundation serves as the benchmark for how research
should be integrated into a company’s expenses using over 50% of their funds to support
research to find cures to diseases such as cancer. The Stand up to Cancer initiative is well
respected and funded very well. EIF appropriated 49% of their revenue to this initiative and
their research in 2012 compared with Komen’s 36.3% that same year (United States Dept.
Treasury “EIF”; United States Dept. Treasury “Komen”). This is a large increase in

13. Kennedy 13
percentage when one takes into account that this is millions of dollars difference in research
funds given out.
However, the Entertainment Industry Foundation runs other grants which are given
out for research into other diseases and a possible cure for them. Research across the board,
including other research grants the EIF gives out, makes up 63.3% of their revenue (United
States Dept. Treasury “EIF”). If this percentage is attainable by one large non-profit; why are
other non-profits having such a hard time aligning funds to research? It is truly logical that
critical thinking, experimentation, and results with conclusions lead to innovation and
answers, so research is integral in changing the face of breast cancer.
From all of this money, one would expect fewer deaths, new ideas on immunology,
and changes in all aspects of cancer. The 40,996 women who dies in 2010 is not alarming
only because it serves as a large death count, but also because in 1991, 43,583 women died
from the disease (CDC 1994). Why has the number of deaths only decreased by a mere 2,587
lost lives? Are we targeting the disease the wrong way or are we simply not doing enough?
There must be radical change to see a greater number of deaths prevented.
Promotions by companies which use breast cancer as a way to promote their business
should be monitored strictly by the public and the proceeds should be given to the
Entertainment Industry Foundation and their Stand Up to Cancer initiative and not Susan G
Komen. The exploitation of the citizens of the United States into giving “for the cure”, is
evident in the money driven world of pink ribbon products, even going as far as to
campaigning for a cure while the company’s products cause cancer. The search for money in
a “good cause” is also evident in the max donations large corporations give to Komen and
other breast cancer charities. Though all of this is advertised as leading to a cure and helping
fight breast cancer, the charity in focus, Susan G Komen, does not support research as much
as society may think, giving a mere 36.3% to grants for research. However, the Stand Up to

14. Kennedy 14
Cancer initiative by the Entertainment Industry Foundation is centred on giving large sums of
money to research labs that either produce results or lose their entitlement to grant funds.
Thus it is clear that public funds should be funnelled to non-profits who support research for
a cure more than educating the public on what they already know.

15. Kennedy 15
Works Cited
Breast Cancer Action. Thinkbeforeyoupink.org. BCA, 2013. Web. 4 January 2014. <thinkbe
foreyoupink.org>.
“Breast Cancer Key Statistics.” Cancer.org. American Cancer Society. Web. 27 April 2014.
<http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-key-
statistics>.
Centers for Disease Control. cdc.gov. CDC, 22 April 1994. Web. 7 February 2014.
<http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00026281.htm>.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. cdc.gov. CDC, 23 October 2013. Web 7
February 2014. <http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/>.
Cromie, William J. “Growth Factor Raises Cancer Risk.” news.harvard.edu. Harvard
University, 22 April 1999. Web. 4 February 2014. <www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1
999/04.22/igf1.story.html>.
“Dansko Pink Ribbon Clogs to Benefit Susan G Komen for the Cure.” nursing.advanceweb.c
om. Advance Healthcare Network. Web. 12 February 2014. < http://nursing.advancew
eb.com/News/New-Products/Dansko-Pink-Ribbon-Clogs-to-Benefit-Susan-G-Komen
-for-the-Cure.aspx>.
Eli Lilly. Lilly.com. LLY, 2014. Web. 11 February 2014. < http://www.lilly.com/products/ani
mal/Pages/animal.aspx>.
Entertainment Industry Foundation. standup2cancer.org. EIF. 2014. Web. 15 February 2014.
<www.standup2cancer.org>.
“Fried food risks: Toxic Aldehydes Detected in Reheated Oil.” sciencedaily.com. Science
Daily. 22 February 2012. Web. 2 February 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20
12/02/120222093508.htm>.
Hankinson, Susan E. “Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1 and risk of

16. Kennedy 16
breast cancer.” The Lancet 351 (1998): 1393-96. Print.
Howlander, Noone N. ”Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality.” komen.org. Susan G Komen,
2013. Web. 3 February 2014. <http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/Statistics.html>.
“KFC Presents to Susan G Komen for the Cure a Check for more than $4.2 Million: Single
Largest Donation in Organization’s History.” Komen.org. Susan G Komen. 24 August
2010. Web. 5 February 2014. <ww5.komen.org/KomenNewsArticle.aspx?id=644245
2377>.
King, Samantha. “Pink Ribbon Inc.” Ontario: Kingston Whig, 2004. Print.
Nelson, Roxanne. “Pink ‘Buckets for the Cure’ Collaboration Between KFC and Komen
Draws Sharp Criticism.” medscape.com. Medscape. 29 April 2010. Web. 8 February
2014. <www.medscape.com/viewarticle/721024>.
“Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone”. cancer.org. American Cancer Society, 18
February 2011. Web. 15 January 2014. <http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses
/othercarcinogens/athome/recombinant-bovine-growth-hormone>.
“Recombinant Bovine Somatotropins.” inchem.org. World Health Organization, 1998. Web.
15 February 2014. <www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v041je11.htm>
Susan G Komen “Mission Fast Facts: Komen’s Investment in Breast Cancer Disparities”.
2013. Print.
Susan G Komen. “2013 Research Fast Facts: Overview”. 2013. Print.
United States. Department of Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. “2012 Return of
Organization Exempt from Declaration and Signature for Electronic Filing (Form
990); Susan G Komen.” Komen.org. 2013. Web. 9 February 2014. <ww5.komen.org/
AboutUs/FinancialInformation.html>.
United States. Department of Treasury. Internal Revenue Service. “2012 Return of
Organization Exempt from Income Tax (Form 990); Entertainment Industry

17. Kennedy 17
Foundation.” eifoundation.org. 2013. Web. 10 February 2014. <www.eifoundation.or
g/legal/form990>.
"What Is Cancer?" cancer.gov. National Institute of Health, 07 March 2014. Web. 19 April
2014. <http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancerlibrary/what-is-cancer>.