in
Medicine, Psychology & Health
—
The Scent of Irony: How Susan G. Komen's Fundraising Perfume Contained Cancer-Linked Ingredients
In 2011, the Susan G. Komen foundation released its "Promise Me" perfume to fund breast cancer research. An investigation by an advocacy group soon revealed the fragrance contained toluene and coumarin, chemicals linked to cancer and developmental issues, creating a major controversy.
In the world of charitable fundraising, optics are everything. The message, the mission, and the methods must align to maintain public trust. In 2011, however, the world’s largest breast cancer organization, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, found itself at the center of a firestorm when its signature fundraising product was accused of containing the very types of chemicals that health advocates work to protect people from.
A Promise, A Perfume
It started with a product called “Promise Me.” Launched in partnership with the company Branded Beauty, the perfume was intended to be a new flagship fundraising tool for the Dallas-based foundation. With its ubiquitous pink ribbon branding, the fragrance was meant to symbolize hope and progress in the fight against breast cancer. But an investigation by the watchdog group Breast Cancer Action uncovered a disturbing irony hidden within its formula.
A Controversial Cocktail
The group revealed that “Promise Me” contained several chemicals of concern. Among them were toluene, a chemical known to be a developmental and reproductive toxicant, and coumarin, which is listed as a carcinogen under California's Proposition 65. Another ingredient, galaxolide, was flagged for being a potential endocrine disruptor—a class of chemicals that can interfere with the body's hormonal system and have been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer.
For a product meant to fight breast cancer, the inclusion of such ingredients was, as Breast Cancer Action’s executive director Karuna Jaggar put it, a glaring contradiction.
“It’s extremely concerning that the world’s largest breast cancer organization is selling a product that contains chemicals that are linked to the disease... This is the most egregious example of pinkwashing we’ve seen.”
The term “pinkwashing” refers to the practice of a company using the pink ribbon or breast cancer cause to promote a product, while that same product may contain ingredients linked to the disease. The “Promise Me” perfume quickly became a textbook example for critics of the foundation.
The Response and The Fallout
Facing intense public pressure, the Komen foundation issued a response. Chandini Portteus, Komen’s vice president of marketing at the time, defended the product's safety, stating that the ingredients were used in small, federally approved amounts.
“The minimal amounts of these ingredients in the perfume pose no risk to women. We’re all about protecting women’s health, and we would never do anything to jeopardize that.”
While the foundation promised to reformulate future batches of the perfume to remove the controversial chemicals, it made a critical decision that amplified the backlash: it refused to pull the existing product from shelves. Komen stated it would continue selling the original formula, arguing that the small amounts posed no genuine health risk. This decision was seen by many as prioritizing profit over principle, further damaging the organization's reputation.
A Lasting Legacy
More than a decade later, the “Promise Me” controversy remains a significant event in the history of the Komen foundation. It is frequently cited in discussions about corporate responsibility and “pinkwashing.” The incident highlighted a critical disconnect for many supporters and critics alike: the gap between a noble mission and the methods used to fund it. It served as a powerful lesson that in the fight for health, the tools you use matter just as much as the cause you champion.