The high-profile sponsorship of a BC cancer research charity event by the world’s biggest oil pipeline builder raises serious questions about the ethics of fundraising – and threatens to backfire for both organizations involved.
Unless you never open a newspaper, turn on the TV, listen to the radio, or surf the web, you have likely recently come across glossy ads for the “Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer”. The 2012 “Ride” will be the fourth for the annual event, with similar rides taking place in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec as well. This year’s and last year’s major sponsor is none other than controversial oil pipeline giant, Enbridge – who want to build the highly unpopular Northern Gateway Pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to a supertanker port at Kitimat on BC’s north coast.
Here’s how the event’s organizers describe it on their website:
“The Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer® is a unique, two-day cycling event to take place on June 16-17, 2012. During this bold cycling journey, you will ride for two days through the scenic Pacific Northwest! Our vision is clear – A World Free From Cancer.”
Having long had the impression that oil – during its life cycle, from extraction through refining, transport, inevitable spillage and ultimate burning – can cause cancer, I naturally felt it hypocritical that a cancer-fighting organization would accept money and sponsorship from a Big Oil company.
So I called the Canadian Cancer Society’s BC Chapter to grill them. Upon doing so, though, I discovered that the Society – that high-profile organization most often associated with cancer-related philanthropy in this province – has nothing to do with the event. Moreover, the woman I spoke to there acknowledged it was hardly the first time they’d dealt with this confusion.
You see, the proceeds from the Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer flow to the BC Cancer Foundation, not the Society. A little more research taught me that the BC Cancer Foundation is the fundraising arm of the BC Cancer Agency, which is a BC government department – under the Provincial Health Services Authority.
So the proceeds of the Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer go, ultimately, to the BC government!
You might ask why I wasn’t more careful in reading the shiny ads for the Ride, which clearly display (though in tiny print) the BC Cancer Foundation, right there in black and white…Well, actually, not black and white, but yellow and blue.
In fact, the banners, posters and commercials for the Enbridge Ride are all in yellow and blue. An interesting choice, given that neither the corporate colours of Enbridge (gold and red) nor the Cancer Foundation (purple and green) are yellow and blue. No, yellow and blue would be the colours of the Cancer Society.
A huge coincidence, I’m sure. Nothing to do with giving citizens who see these ads the false impression that this event benefits the much better-known and highly regarded Cancer Society. (Yeah, right!)
The reason I know it’s all just a big coincidence is that Enbridge isn’t a multi-billion dollar oil company pushing a highly controversial pipeline through BC and wouldn’t be a company looking to do some PR damage control, and certainly wouldn’t have access to sophisticated marketing people who understand the subconscious power of branding, who, in turn, would never consider using the brand of one of BC’s most beloved non-profits, without its permission, to greenwash their company’s activities…No more then a filmmaker and writer, such as myself, would use sarcasm to make a point!
Having ascertained that this event actually represents an alliance between Enbridge and a BC Government agency – through its fundraising foundation – I contacted the BC Cancer Foundation with a few questions. Here is a sampling of my correspondence with their PR rep, Allison Colina:
Damien Gillis: Is it hypocritical for your organization to accept sponsorship from a company who deals in a known cancer-causing product? (as worded in my initial phone conversation with Ms. Colina’s colleague)
Allison Colina: With regards to petroleum products causing cancer, we turn to the research and clinical experts at the BC Cancer Agency to determine what are cancer-causing substances…According to the World Health Organization, there is no conclusive research at this time that indicates that petroleum products cause cancer.
DG: …[Does] your organization [feel] it is problematic to be associated with such an unpopular company and project in BC (polls show upwards of 80% of British Columbians are opposed to oil tankers on the BC coast and Enbridge’s proposed project has been highly controversial, as you well know)?
AC: Our Gift Acceptance Policy is approved by our Board of Directors and guides management and employees in accepting gifts from a wide variety of donors and sources, and ensures that the Foundation maintains a strong base of financial support. Examples of prohibited gifts include gifts from tobacco companies, or gifts from the proceeds of crime. Since Enbridge came on-board as sponsor of the Ride to Conquer Cancer in 2010, our participation numbers have grown and we have been able to focus on our goal of a world free from cancer by directing significant funds to leading-edge research at the BC Cancer Agency thanks to the Ride.
Ms. Colina declined to divulge the dollar value of Enbridge’s sponsorship upon my inquiry. I also asked her about the Precautionary Principle – providing the example of electromagnetic radiation (EMF), which up until recently was not considered a possible carcinogen by the WHO but is today. She declined to deal with that question directly.
Upon reading Ms. Colina’s emailed answers to my questions, I decided to do a little research into the carcinogenicity of petroleum products. Was I simply mistaken in my understanding of the health implications of oil and its derivatives?
I turned to the WHO’s list of known, probable and possible carcinogens to see if there was any truth to Ms. Colina’s assertion that “according to the World Health Organization, there is no conclusive research at this time that indicates that petroleum products cause cancer.”
Well, it turns out the International Agency for Research on Cancer – the WHO subsidiary group that produces the list of carcinogens Ms. Colina referred to – does indeed list “Petroleum refining (workplace exposures in)” as a probable carcinogen and Benzene, a byproduct of petroleum, as a known carcinogen.
I then contacted Dr. Karen Bartlett of the UBC School of Environmental Health, posing to her the same question: To what extent can petroleum products be considered carcinogenic? Here’s what she told me by phone:
“There are two major petroleum products that we know are associated with carcinogenicity. One is in the distillation process of petroleum products, which produces Benzene. Benezene is carcinogenic. The other is in the combustion of diesel. Diesel particulate is carcinogenic.”
Let’s also consider the Campbell/Clark Government’s own admissions regarding the health impacts of burning fossil fuels – diesel truck fuel, to be specific.
The following statement didn’t specify any particular diseases or health impacts – it was speaking in a general sense of overall health outcomes. In the government’s submission to the environmental assessment process for its then-proposed (now under construction) South Fraser Perimeter Road truck highway from Deltaport, the Ministry of Transportation acknowledged vehicle emissions from the highway – which passes within 500 meters of 16 schools and near many homes and workplaces – would result in increased human illness along the route.
They of course found a silver lining to all this, writing : “With increased air pollution there can possibly be increased employment (e.g., in the health sector) because of the economic activity associated with correcting the results of its impacts.” (Technical Volume 16, page 39)
So perhaps cancer and asthma are in fact good for the economy, which makes the BC Liberals’ support for the Enbridge pipeline – and acceptance of their own government agency taking money from the same company – more understandable.
That too was sarcasm – in case you missed it.
In closing, I don’t mean to suggest that cancer research isn’t of vital importance – or to impugn the efforts of the event’s organizers and participants. Surely the funds raised will go to a good cause. And surely those cyclists working hard to raise pledges for the event are doing an admirable thing which they believe in.
What I question is whether it is ethical for an organization battling cancer to accept a large donation from a company whose products cause cancer, which they do. Far from acknowledging what the WHO and many other scientists and doctors from around the world suggest, the BC Cancer Foundation prefers to misrepresent the WHO’s position and to utterly disregard the Precautionary Principle, which would suggest you don’t wait for 100% confirmation when peoples’ lives are at stake.
Moreover, is it appropriate for this organization to offer Enbridge the opportunity to greenwash its severely embattled image in BC by dishonestly associating itself – through savvy marketing and manipulation of the public – with the reputation of the Cancer Society, which in fact has nothing to do with this event?
Make no mistake, that is precisely what Enbridge is up to with its sponsorship of this event – and the BC Cancer Foundation and BC Government’s Cancer Agency well know it, or most certainly should. And if this sponsorship in anyway helps to mollify public opposition to the ghastly Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline, then lives may be lost as a result – if it helps to get the pipeline built. That’s why this matters. And why it’s not okay to say this money goes to positive ends and leave it at that.
This money may in fact go to very negative ends, if one examines the bigger picture and considers the implications of being complicit in greenwashing the expansion of the Alberta Tar Sands, the eventual certainty of ecologically disastrous oil spills via the pipeline and tanker traffic on our coast, and the increase of carbon emissions, air pollution and climate change – all of which cost lives.
The question now is how will the public, knowing the true nature of this scheme, choose to respond to the Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer? If more people understood what Enbridge was up to – if the BC Cancer Foundation and BC Government were to hear loudly from the public on this matter – that would effectively nullify what Enbridge is trying to do with this event. It might even backfire and cause the company even more problems as it enters the critical public comment phase of the National Energy Board review of its pipeline proposal, this coming January.
Campaigns and movements thrive on specific challenges to direct their energies toward – this could very easily become one of them.
Damien Thanks for your time and concern. I have watched Enbridge’s tactics and seen the undermining of local communities the right to say “no” whith the possible environmental damage by crossing hundreds of Salmon bearing rivers and streams. Where a spill from the increase tankers could cause an ecological disaster and there is no plan to cleaan up the mess. We need democratic accountibility. We the people must stand up for our province and our future generations. Oil and Water do not mix!!!!! My mother died from Cancer as well and I could not say more for the support given by the Cancer Society. It is ahame that Enbridge has used their marketing to tarnish a real and honest society who care for people and families in need. Thanks for your unwavering support in this province Damien and to all Canadians, we matter and will not compromise our rights and concerns. Where is the process of deliberation and Consultation between the elected officials and the Canadian Citizens. We Care!!!!!
Sonya M McCarthy
If you think Enbridge’s reason for sponsoring the Ride is “doing good”, then I have some Florida swampland you may be interested in, Ian.
A half baked article at best. Trying to trash a charity and a corporation that is trying to do a little good in the world. Coming from someone that I am sure uses petro chemical products in thier daily life.
Absolute trash!
Thank you for this. Given that my father died of cancer, its natural that I would want to support an event such as this. On the other hand, his particular cancer was hairy cell leukaemia, caused by long-term exposure to petroleum products. Now that I know that the BC Cancer Foundation is not the same thing as the Cancer Society, I can go and find other charitable avenues with a clear conscience.
Damian, thank you for connecting the Enbridge dots!!
I won’t be donating through them this year.
Those who generously donate their time for the betterment of the human race are so very needed and, are to be commended! That said, we all need to do our homework and then if needed, back our egos down when the truth shows up.
No question, the Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer is well intentioned, but dirty. There is some degree of good intention in each of these organizations, but when profit is involved, criticism is crucial.
To those who are riding/swimming/running/speaking/giving for any cause, there are excellent events/opportunities that channel funds directly to an organization and do not have such strong corporate sponsorship ties. If there isn’t one already, for your given desires, you could always start one.
“Air pollution contributes to … lung cancer….In 1996, transportation sources were responsible for 47% of pollutant emissions.”
— American Lung Association
“The production of particulate matter (PM) less than 10_m is associated particularly with the combustion of carbon-based and sulphur-based chemicals such as gasoline and diesel.
Exposure has been linked with… serious health effects including cancer”
— Canadian Lung Association
The Cancer Foundation has a mandate to generate income.
What is their overhead? What is the salary of the CEO and CFO? Canada lacks a “Charity Navigator” like the US has and efforts to obscure true overhead makes the facts very difficult to parse. The claims that the BCCF doesn’t deal with illegal money ignores the fact that Enbridge has a history of illegal actions-http://www.ontariotenants.ca/natural_gas/articles/2004/ts-04d23.phtml. This is but one example.
The use of the Cancer Foundation for image damage control is a cynical action that should be a red flag for evil intent; ie the next quarter’s profit, damn the consequences for human oersons (unlike the immortal corporate persons).
So since the raw materials used to make plastic come from petroleum and natural gas should the cancer agency stop using essentially all of their equipment used in treatment because is supports the oil industry?
I too am a cancer survivor and have participated in the ride for the last two years. I also had signed up for the 2011 ride before Enbridge came on board and was appalled when I discovered this. I applaud Damien for his article and hope the Foundation wake up. It is a wonderful ride and WAS a great fundraiser. I wear my 2010 cycling shirt with great pride but the 2011 shirt has gone to a thrift store.
I think Mr Jack rather than attacking Mr Gillis you may want to go back to Mr Nelson and tell him to get rid of the Enbridge name, logo and sponsor
Thanks for the clarification, Steve. Whether intentional or not, it’s still highly confusing to the public. Blue is not part of Lance’s Live Strong brand. Yellow and Blue + cancer in Canada = Cancer Society, which makes the Ride’s brand in the very least coincidentally beneficial yet misleading to the public any way you look at it. And it helps Enbridge with its greenwashing, which is my chief concern, as noted.
A point of clarification: As someone intimately involved in developing the Ride to Conquer Cancer concept and branding, i can assure you in no way did we ever try to confuse the public. Yellow and cycling and cancer have strong associations via Lance Armstrong / Tour de France. The blue is similar to the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre’s blue. We also used black as our underlying colours to underscore the big and bold nature of the Ride. Our Ride branding was developed in 2007 before any sponsors came on board to support the program. Princess Margaret is a world leader in Cancer research and along with our partners like the BC Cancer Foundation, we are passionately focussed on raising critical funds to help support cancer research programs. The suggestion of proceeds going directly to the BC gov’t is wrong and misleading. Proceeds go to support leading edge cancer research and that’s the bottom line.
Anne, I appreciate everything you’re saying, and yet still strongly disagree on principle. My point is if this year’s Ride helps Enbridge build a pipeline, the costs to society, the environment and human health outweigh the benefits of the proceeds raised. We’re never going to see a “world free from cancer” until we get serious about changing our unhealthy fossil fuel based, globalized, consumerist culture. Oil is at the root of that whole unhealthy system. So the Foundation and others simply have find a way to raise money for cancer research than whoring themselves out to Big Oil. They’re able to do what they have to do without money from Big Tobacco or proceeds of crime – they can do it without Oil money…But I thank you for your candour and am very sorry for your loss.
I am a Rider in this event and have been since 2009 when Enbridge was NOT a sponsor. I have personally held the hand of my dying Mother and watched her take her last breath, robbed of live by the evil that is cancer. Each one of us has a choice, to use products or not to, to buy an item or not, and to support a cause or not. The Riders who participate in this event are all there with one goal in mind, to stop cancer. We train and raise money to provide researchers with funding in the province in which we live. I cannot afford to donate that kind of money on my own to the Cancer Society, but I do know that the money donated to the Ride makes a difference. I have met a researcher who is also a rider and a survivour, and he is an inspiration to us all. I am I might add a Green Party member and active supporter, but if I have to make a deal with the Devil himself to end cancer I will do just that.
Talk all you want about its cause, till you have sat at the bedside of a loved one and seen them die you have no clue as to my heartache, and by tarnishing the Ride you are possibly prolonging finding a cure.
The author would have been more justified arguing that oil companies cause cancer by encouraging a sedentary lifestyle (a much greater cause of cancer than benzene exposure!). Where do you draw the line on “appropriate” sponsors? Almost everything in modern life, from computer to cars to supermarkets, decrease physical activity and therefore increase cancer risk (although computers, cars and supermarkets are not labeled as carcinogens by IARC or WHO)…but, frankly, nor is oil.
The author states in a subsequent comment “oil is a generally unhealthy product […] That should be enough for the Foundation to steer clear of Enbridge”; if the perception of an association with the potential for an unhealthy product is sufficient to disqualify a sponsor…surely that would exclude every company with sufficient resources?
Rather than bashing Enbridge for supporting cancer research, shouldn’t we be question why apparently “righteous” companies (what/whoever they might be) didn’t come forward and lend their support?
Meanwhile, the funds from The Enbridge Ride to Conquer Cancer will continue to support research in each of the provinces in which it is held.
Bravo, Enbridge!
Jack, no Enbridge, Kinder or TransCanda and no Tar Sands oil. Period. 6 degrees of separation? Try one. There’s no leap to be made here. Enbridge is an oil company – whether they suck it out of the ground, turn it into diesel, or make the cars that burn the stuff or not. They’re an oil company. We’ve heard your point – three times now. I disagree. Further discussion on the matter is a waste of both our time.
We used to have the du Maurier Jazz Festival and the Benson & Hedges fireworks. Now they have other sponsors.
Easy to see the parallel here if one has a desire to.
Cancer Society/Cancer Foundation?? Most common folk do not make the distinction unless pointed out to them.
But what they can see is the unfortunate part of this organization prostituting itself to the highest bidder as a sponsor, whatever the name is.
Find another sponsor and the whole controversy disappears. Make no mistake in the rationalizations; this is controversial to have Enbridge involved.
Perception
Damien,
The only thing I “presume to dictate” is that you be factual in your accusations. You haven’t been.
Would you go after MADD if Nissan sponsored a fundraising event for them, because hey, it takes a car for a drunk driver to kill?
If it was the Chevron Ride to Conquer Cancer you’d have a much better argument: presumably because their Burnaby refinery creates the benzene by-product (assuming).
I applaud your hellbent passion to fight for the environmental causes you believe in. But that passion doesn’t give you the right to smear an organization in a dishonest manner using an argument that requires “6 degrees of Bacon” to find truthiness.
I’m sure you have ample fact-based arguments to make against the proposed pipeline, why don’t you stick to those rather than look to financially and reputably harm a charitable organization that has done nothing wrong?
Jack, consider what you’re saying. Let’s assume a drug trafficker gets caught at the border with 10 kilos of coke. Should he be able to avoid prosecution with the defense, “I didn’t grow the coca leaves, I’m not selling it on the street, I’m not snorting it. Don’t blame me – I’m just the middleman.”?! Enbridge is a critical link in the production, transmission and use of fossil fuels which cause cancer and contribute to myriad other health and environmental problems. So much so that without their services the industry could not operate, nor could the Tar Sands continue to expand. I applaud your volunteer work for the organization – and have no issue whatsoever with its work beyond this very specific matter. But I’m hellbent on stopping this calamitous pipeline and this event is the single biggest PR tool for Enbridge, so I have a problem with that. It’s up to you to decide for yourself whether you’re comfortable with the situation, which it sounds like you are. But don’t presume to dictate to me what concerns I can and cannot raise on the matter.
A Rider, I didn’t imply Enbridge invented the colour scheme. That may very well be on the Cancer Foundation or Princess Margaret in Ontario as you say – it’s wrong regardless. It’s the Cancer Society’s brand and it’s confusing to the public – I’m not talking about google searches, I’m talking about the initial, subconscious impression an ad makes on people in passing, which is how this branding is experienced. Who came up with the brand isn’t important; it’s how it’s being used today by Enbridge that matters. The event wasn’t on my radar until Enbridge got involved – and that is the only issue I take with it. They recognized an opportunity to associate themselves with a high-profile philanthropic event and they’re milking it for everything they can, as they enter the most critical phase for their project. The Cancer Foundation and others are wrong to borrow the Cancer Society’s brand and they’re wrong to allow Enbridge to associate themselves with this event…I spent a few paragraphs discussing this aspect of this issue because it is relevant to the discussion – but the focus of my piece is squarely on the ethical question of whether it’s acceptable for a cancer-fighting organization to take money and sponsorship from an oil company. I don’t think it is – nor do you, A Rider, according to your initial comment.
Damien,
Twice now it’s been pointed out to you that your facts are clearly wrong. The moral thing to do in this case is to correct your writing. You’re unfairly attempting to shame a credible charitable organization into dumping a title sponsor–and for the record, the BC Cancer Foundation gives a larger share of its donations to the Cancer Agency for research purposes than the Canadian Cancer Society does when measured as a percentage of donations.
It’s funny that you say you’re trying to open a conversation while at the same time you’re ignoring the truths that have been laid plain in front of you. Your blog post was poorly researched. As a result, your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The only moral necessity you should be feeling right now is the obligation to apologize to the people you’ve wrongfully accused.
Damien, The Ride was using those colours before Enbridge was brought on as title sponsor last year. I’m pretty sure that the branding was set by the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation in Ontario, who started the event and owns the trademark to Ride to Conquer Cancer in Canada, and then it was rolled out to other provincial cancer foundations.
Any confusion between the Canadian Cancer Society and the BC Cancer Foundation could be solved by a 10 second google search.
A Rider, first of all, thank you for sharing your personal story as a cancer survivor. With respect, colours, branding, and PR are important, inasmuch as they’re proven to be so effective in shaping peoples’ mindsets. If they weren’t, then corporations the world over wouldn’t spend millions hiring advertising agencies to develop just such tools. I admit I know very little about cancer philanthropy and research in BC or elsewhere. What I know is the Cancer Society is a powerful brand. Along with Heart and Stroke it is, I would argue, the best known charity in BC. I had never heard of the BC Cancer Foundation before I started looking into this Enbridge business. Again, I’m a layman here – but that objectivity is also helpful when it comes to evaluating the strength of a given brand. I can also tell you from speaking to a public relations officer at the Cancer Society that this strategy of Enbridge’s seems to be working. The woman I spoke to acknowledged I was far from the first person to call the office, wondering why their organization was in bed with an oil company. There’s no “conspiracy theory” here – I’m simply illustrating the tools Enbridge is using in an attempt to soften its much sullied image, at a critical moment, in order to make billions of dollars from a controversial oil pipeline. What better way to do that than to associate themselves with something so taboo to criticize as cancer research? You acknowledge as much when you describe your own inner-conflict about the event. But I feel it morally necessary, for the reasons I’ve outlined in my piece, to wade into the subject and open up the conversation.
As a cancer survivor who would not be here to type this comment without the support of the BC Cancer Agency, this is a difficult issue. I’ve been a beneficiary of the fine work of the caregivers and researchers supported by the BC Cancer Foundation, and I participated in the past 2 rides. Last year I signed up before Enbridge was announced as sponsor. I decided not to do it again in 2012 due to the Enbridge connection and many of the arguments outlined in this article. However the claims about the BC Cancer Foundation misleading the public due to the colours of the Ride are off-base, and it makes the author look like he’s stretching to find a conspiracy theory. It’s very clear where the funds raised are going. However, it’s too bad the directors of the BCCF found it necessary to accept Enbridge as a title sponsor.
Damien’s is a spurious argument.
I volunteer for the foundation being “tarred & feathered” by Damien, whose argument is, well, misinformed to say the least.
Enbridge doesn’t produce or refine oil. It transports energy. The only energy it produces is renewable: wind and solar primarily.
Using Damien’s “logic,” we should be angry too at the companies and non-profits who advertise on Translink’s diesel burning buses, because combusted diesel particulates cause cancer. Who would have thought leaving the car at home and taking public transit would contribute to people getting sick?
I’m not in favour of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. But I will say this, from an informed position: there isn’t a long list of organizations willing to be the title sponsor on a national fundraising campaign.
Perhaps in the future Damien could focus his criticism where it’s due rather than invent “facts” to unfairly tarnish charity-worthy organizations.
Thanks for a great article!
Thanks for a great article Damien. I already had a big distaste for the fact that Enbridge was supporting the Ride to Conquer Cancer prior to reading this, so much so that I could not bring myself to give a pledge to someone I know that cycled in this event recently. If the Cancer Agency thinks there is no proof that Petroleum products cause cancer, how does one explain the 30% rate of cancer in the Fort Chippewan First Nations that live down river from the Tar Sands. Once again we just need to follow the money. The BC government should be ashamed of themselves for getting into bed with an organization like Enbridge. Greenwashing at it’s finest.
Thanks, Al. I want to be clear that the issue here is more about the Precautionary Principle. The Foundation is grasping for what I feel are weak defenses and technicalities to dismiss these concerns. Clearly carcinogenicity is a complicated matter and I certainly am no expert. But the point is oil is a generally unhealthy product – that in some ways likely contributes to causing cancer. That should be enough for the Foundation to steer clear of Enbridge. But they seem able to justify it to themselves…
While the optics of Enbridge’s ride and their cancer-causing business has always been absurd to those of us fighting their Northern Gateway pipelines, this article is extremely useful in uncovering the additional layers and in the call to action to pressure the BC Government and BC Cancer Foundation. If the Cancer Foundation is lying that petroleum doesn’t cause cancer, maybe we should pressure the toxic funds raised to go to Fort Chip to study the impacts of tar sands on impacted communities…
Thanks for the great journalism!
thanks for doing the work to track this down, damien. galling to say the least.