Science
She Lobbied for Formaldehyde. Now She’s at E.P.A. Approving New Chemicals.
Formaldehyde, the chemical of choice for undertakers and embalmers, is also used in products like furniture and clothes. But it can also cause cancer and severe respiratory problems. So, in 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency began a new effort to regulate it.
The chemicals industry fought back with an intensity that astonished even seasoned agency officials. Its campaign was led by Lynn Dekleva, then a lobbyist at the American Chemistry Council, an industry group that spends millions of dollars on government lobbying.
Dr. Dekleva is now at the E.P.A. in a crucial job: She runs an office that has the authority to approve new chemicals for use. Earlier she spent 32 years at Dupont, the chemical maker, before joining the E.P.A. in the first Trump administration.
Her most recent employer, the chemicals lobbying group, has made reversing the Environmental Protection Agency’s course on formaldehyde a priority and is pushing to abolish a program under which the agency assess the risks of chemicals to human health. In recent weeks it has urged the agency to discard its work on formaldehyde entirely and start from scratch in assessing the risks.
The American Chemistry Council is also seeking to change the agency’s approval process for new chemicals and speed up E.P.A.’s safety reviews. That review process is a key part of Dr. Dekelva’s purview at the agency.
Another former chemistry council lobbyist, Nancy Beck, is back alongside Dr. Dekleva at the E.P.A. in a role regulating existing chemicals. The council’s president, Chris Jahn, told a Senate hearing shortly after the Trump inauguration that his group intended to tackle the “unnecessary regulation” of chemicals in the United States. “A healthy nation, a secure nation, an economically vibrant nation relies on chemistry,” he said.
It is not unusual or unlawful for industry groups to seek to influence public policy in the interest of their member companies. The A.C.C. estimates that products using formaldehyde support more than 1.5 million jobs in the United States.
What has been extraordinary, health and legal experts said, is the extent of the industry’s effort to block the E.P.A.’s scientific work on a chemical long acknowledged as a carcinogen, and how the architect of the effort was back at the agency as a regulator of chemicals. At the same time, the Trump administration has moved to sharply reduce the federal scientific work force.
“They already have a track record of ignoring the science,” said Tracey Woodruff, director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco. “Now, they’re in charge of government agencies that decide the rules.”
While leading the chemistry council’s fight to limit formaldehyde regulation, Dr. Dekleva called for investigations of federal officials for potential bias. The industry group used freedom of information laws to obtain emails of federal employees and criticized them in public statements for what they had written. It submitted dozens of industry-funded research papers to agencies that minimized the risks of formaldehyde.
The A.C.C. also sued both the E.P.A. and the National Academies, which advises the nation on scientific questions, accusing researchers of a lack of scientific integrity.
Allison Edwards, a chemistry council spokeswoman, said officials from the group had regularly met with E.P.A. staff members “to share critical science and to try and ensure an assessment of any chemistry is objective, employs rigorous scientific standards, and is reflective of real-world human exposure.” She said, “We’re asking to be one of many stakeholders at the table.”
Molly Vaseliou, a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said the agency would continue to make sure it “ensures chemicals do not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.” At the same time, the agency would also work to approve “chemicals that are needed to power American innovation and competitiveness,” she said.
Formaldehyde’s cancer risk
Formaldehyde’s fumes can cause wheezing and a burning sensation in the eyes, especially when they accumulate indoors. That danger was apparent when formaldehyde in plywood used to build temporary trailer homes for victims of Hurricane Katrina sickened dozens of people.
And there are longer-term dangers, namely several types of cancers. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that the chemical is a human carcinogen, and the U.S. Department of Health listed it as a human carcinogen in 2011.
The chemical is restricted in the workplace, in certain composite wood products, and in pesticides. Yet efforts to strengthen overall regulations in the United States have stalled in the face of industry opposition.
President Biden, whose “cancer moonshot” program had made reducing cancer deaths a priority, revived in 2021 an E.P.A. assessment of the health effects of the chemical, and published a draft the following year. That effort, under the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System, was the first step toward regulating formaldehyde.
The chemistry council led a coalition of industry groups, including the Composite Panel Association and Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers, arguing that formaldehyde had already been rigorously studied and that strict industry controls were in place.
In a half-dozen letters to the E.P.A., Dr. Dekleva, on behalf of a formaldehyde panel at the industry group, raised a list of complaints about the way the agency was carrying out its assessment.
She questioned research linking formaldehyde to leukemia, or cancer of the blood, and accused the agency of not relying on the best available science. There was a dose, she said, at which formaldehyde did not cause risk. There was also research, she said, that showed inhaled formaldehyde did not easily travel beyond the nose to cause harm to the body.
In light of these issues, Dr. Dekleva wrote, agency’s draft assessment was “flawed and unreliable without significant revision.”
To bolster its case, the industry group enlisted experts at consulting firms to submit opinions and studies to the E.P.A. minimizing formaldehyde’s risks. The firms included those previously commissioned by tobacco companies to help defend cigarettes.
The A.C.C. also submitted 41 peer-reviewed studies that it said refuted a link between formaldehyde and leukemia. A New York Times review found that the majority of the studies were funded by industry groups, including at least 11 from the Research Foundation for Health and Environmental Effects, an organization established by the American Chemistry Council.
David Michaels, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University School of Public Health and assistant secretary of labor under President Barack Obama, said the industry strategy was to create the appearance of disagreement among scientists.
While it’s true, he said, that inconsistencies can always exist in studies on humans, “there’s little disagreement among independent scientists that formaldehyde causes cancer.”
Scientists targeted
For more than 150 years, the National Academies has advised the U.S. government on science. In 2021, it was asked to weigh in on the E.P.A.’s work on formaldehyde.
It became a target of the American Chemistry Council.
The industry group used freedom of information laws to obtain internal emails of members and support staff of a panel assessing the E.P.A.’s formaldehyde review, and it accused one staff of showing “bias in favor of disputed research claiming formaldehyde causes leukemia.”
The staff member, a former Environmental Protection Agency scientist, had for example described as “wonderful” the news that Congress might try to replicate an influential Chinese study that had shown formaldehyde could cause leukemia.
Wendy E. Wagner, professor at the University of Texas School of Law and an expert on the use of science by environmental policymakers, said she did not see how the comment reflected bias. “After all, they don’t know what the results will be, do they?” she said. “I would expect all scientists to be enthusiastic about potential future research.”
Dr. Dekleva called for investigations at both the E.P.A. and the National Academies, and for the removal of potentially biased panel members and staff. That included scientists who had previously accepted federal research grants.
In July 2023, the industry group sued the E.P.A., as well as the National Academies, accusing researchers of a lack of scientific integrity. The chemistry council said that lack of integrity made the use of the National Academies research in regulating formaldehyde “arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.”
“It was relentless, and beyond the pale,” said Maria Doa, a scientist at the E.P.A. for 30 years who is now senior director of chemicals policy at the Environmental Defense Fund. “They really ratcheted up their attacks on federal employees.”
The National Academies stood its ground, issuing a report the following month affirming the E.P.A.’s Integrated Risk Information System findings that formaldehyde is carcinogenic and increases leukemia risk.
Those conclusions are shared by other global health authorities.
Mary Schubauer-Berigan, the evidence-synthesis head at the World Health Organization’s Agency for Research on Cancer, said there was “sufficient evidence in humans” that formaldehyde causes leukemia as and nasopharynx cancer. Mikko Vaananen, a spokesman for the European Chemicals Agency, said that while some questions around specific links to leukemia remained unanswered, evidence was sufficient to classify formaldehyde as a carcinogen. Formaldehyde “cannot in principle be placed on the E.U. market,” he said.
In March 2024, a federal judge dismissed the chemistry council’s lawsuit. And early this year, near the end of the Biden administration, the E.P.A. issued a final risk determination, under the Toxic Substances Control Act: Formaldehyde “presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health.”
Mary A. Fox, an expert in chemical risk assessment at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and a member of a committee that reviewed the E.P.A.’s research on formaldehyde, said agency scientists had accurately reflected the uncertainties around the links between formaldehyde and leukemia. But they had documented many other streams of evidence that indicated that link, Dr. Fox said.
“It’s an inevitable progress of science, that as we learn more over time, we generally learn that health effects appear at lower concentrations than we had thought,” she said.
Following Mr. Trump’s re-election, the American Chemistry Council signed onto a letter from a range of industry groups calling for broad changes to policy, specifically citing formaldehyde. “We urge your administration to pause and reconsider” the E.P.A. findings on formaldehyde, the Dec. 5 letter said.
The E.P.A. “should go back to the scientific drawing board,” chemistry council said in January. The group was particularly concerned about the workplace limits the agency was suggesting, which it said ignored steps companies were already taking to protect workers, like the use of personal protective equipment.
The A.C.C. is also supporting a bill from Republican members of Congress that would end the Integrated Risk Information System.
Soon after, Trump transition officials said Dr. Dekleva would be returning to the E.P.A. to run a program assessing chemicals for approval. The chemistry council, which has long complained of a backlog, is pushing the agency to speed up approvals.
During the first Trump administration, agency whistle-blowers described in an inspector general’s investigation how they had faced “intense” pressure to eliminate the backlog, sometimes at the expense of safety. Shortly after the inauguration, the Trump administration fired the inspector-general who carried out the investigation.
On Jan. 20, the A.C.C. welcomed President Trump. “Americans want a stronger, more affordable country,” said Mr. Jahn, the group’s president. “America’s chemical manufacturers can help.”
Science
Freaked out by the news? Tips for staying calm from ex-refugees, hostages and ‘uncertainty experts’
War in Iran. Sleeper cells. Soaring gas prices. A new virus. ICE arrests. The acceleration of AI. And a rogue food delivery robot. Is your heart racing yet?
Amid one of the highest-stakes, most chaotic news cycles in recent memory, it’s hard to keep calm while scrolling through the day’s doom-saturated headlines.
Fear not. A team of British scientists, two authors and a group of thought leaders once deemed societal outcasts are here to help. Sam Conniff and Katherine Templar-Lewis’ new book, “The Uncertainty Toolkit: Worry Less and Do More by Learning to Cope With the Unknown,” presents evidence-based strategies to help you not only tolerate uncertainty, but thrive in the face of it.
Conniff, a self-described author and “social entrepreneur,” and Templar-Lewis, a neuroscientist, partnered with the University College London’s Centre for the Study of Decision-Making Uncertainty as well as real world “uncertainty experts” — former prisoners, drug addicts, hostages, refugees and others — to execute the most extensive study to date on “Uncertainty Tolerance,” which published in 2022. Their web project, “Uncertainty Experts,” is an interactive “self development experience” that includes workshops and an online Netflix-produced documentary, through which viewers can test their own uncertainty tolerance.
Their “Uncertainty Toolkit” book, out April 7, addresses the three emotional states that uncertainty puts us in — Fear, Fog and Stasis — while blending personal stories from the subjects they interviewed with the latest science on uncertainty, interactive exercises and guided reflections.
“The Uncertainty Toolkit” aims to help you keep calm amid chaos.
(Bluebird / Pan Macmillan)
“We are scientifically in the most uncertain times,” Templar-Lewis says. “There’s something called the World Uncertainty Index, which charts uncertainty [globally]. And it’s spiking. People say life has always been uncertain, and of course it has; but because of the way we’re connected and on digital platforms and our lives are so busy, we’re interacting with more and more moments of uncertainty than ever before.”
We asked the authors to relay three strategies for staying calm in challenging times, as told to them by their uncertainty experts.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Advice from an ex-addict: Be grateful: Morgan Godvin is an ex-addict and human rights activist from Oregon who served four years of a five-year sentence in a federal prison, Conniff says.
“She developed a practice of ‘Radical Gratitude.’ Even in a world that feels so overwhelming, we can all find an object from which to derive a sense of gratitude,” he says. “As an emotion, gratitude provides a counterweight to anxiety that is almost as powerful as breath work or any of the other [anti-anxiety] well-known interventions.”
In prison, Godvin — who suffers from anxiety — created a daily practice to help her cope. “She began being grateful for the blankets, the only thing she had — and they were threadbare blankets,” Conniff says. “And by digging deep and really emphasizing the warm sensation we know of as gratitude, it became a biological hack. When the body starts to feel grateful, the hormones the body releases brings it back into what’s known as homeostasis or a sense of equilibrium; it activates the parasympathetic nervous system. It’s a very humbling and very healthy practice when the world’s just too much.”
Advice from a survivor of suicidal depression: Lean into the unknown. Vivienne Ming is a leading neuroscientist based in the Bay Area who faced a web of personal challenges in her early 20s. Ming, who was assigned male at birth, dropped out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, became homeless and was “living out of their car with a gun on their dashboard,” Conniff says. “They faced homelessness and near suicidal depression before finding a path that took them through gender transition to a place of real identity, marriage, family and success as a scientist.”
How? They developed and cultivated an awareness of “negativity bias,” Conniff says. “We all have a predetermined negativity bias. And in times of uncertainty, that negativity bias goes off the charts and we start to limit ourselves and shut ourselves down. By understanding this, we begin to be able to make a choice: Am I shutting myself down to the opportunities of life? Am I not getting back to people? Am I not taking the chances that are presented to me?”
What’s more, uncertainty, Dr. Ming pointed out, is actually good for you. It unlocks parts of your brain.
“Uncertainty drives neuroplasticity, our ability to learn,” Conniff says. “So [it’s about] resisting negativity bias — that this is all dangerous and difficult and we’re told not to trust each other — and instead, Dr. Ming’s response is to lean into the unknown. She says ‘the best way forward is to all walk slowly into the deep end of our own lives.’”
Advice from an ex-refugee: Reflect on your gut. Rez Gardi grew up in a refugee camp in Pakistan, before her family relocated to New Zealand. She’s now a lawyer and human rights activist working in Iraq.
“Rez correctly identified the scientific explanation for what we all call ‘gut instinct,’” Conniff says. “It’s known as ‘embodied cognition.’ The idea is that we have two brains — the gut instinct is an incredibly complex system of data points and it literally is in our gut and it’s connected to our brains via the vagus nerve. What it does is it brings your intuition in line with your intellect.”
So how to tap into it? “Rez talked about reflecting on her gut instinct,” Conniff says. “So when you have a feeling that you are right or wrong, go back to that feeling: What color was it? What shape was it? Where was it in your body? What temperature was it? Rez honed her gut instinct to become incredibly accurate: Should she trust this person? Was she safe? And that gut instinct became a highly tuned instrument. When we are trying to solve problems, when we are trying to communicate, these signals are as accurate as the best of our cognitive problem-solving abilities.”
Conniff and Templar-Lewis spoke to nearly 40 uncertainty experts in all. And with all of them, Conniff adds, “they kind of learned these techniques themselves, but the scientific evidence really backs it up.”
Science
How a Melting Glacier in Antarctica Could Affect Tens of Millions Around the Globe
Scientists spent the first weeks of the year on an expedition to Antarctica to study Thwaites Glacier, which is melting at an alarming rate. If it breaks apart entirely, it could push up global sea levels by two feet over the course of several decades, affecting tens of millions worldwide, according to a New York Times analysis.
The maps below show some of the coastal cities at risk and populated, low-lying areas that could be threatened if the glacier were to collapse today.
1.7 million
These are just the minimum effects that Thwaites’s disintegration would be likely to have on the world’s coastlines. As the glacier breaks apart, global warming will raise sea levels even higher by melting the ice from Greenland and causing oceans to expand in volume. And Thwaites acts as a plug, holding back many of the Antarctic glaciers on land around it. If it collapses, they could break apart and spill into the sea as well.
“Eventually it would take out all of the West Antarctic,” said Richard Alley, a professor of geosciences at Penn State.
Seaside cities all over the world are at risk, but the threat is especially acute in Asia, and includes some of the world’s fastest-growing urban areas, as the map below shows:
The costs of guarding against higher storm surges and more frequent flooding would be huge. One proposal from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to protect parts of New York City would cost more than $52 billion, a price tag that would be out of reach for much of the world.
“We’ll defend the highest-value places that are defensible, but there will be other places that we don’t,” said Benjamin Strauss, Chief Scientist at Climate Central, a nonprofit science organization that produced the elevation models used in this article.
In city after city, the Times’s analysis found that heavily populated areas tend to be near the coasts, as opposed to higher, safer areas.
Shanghai, one of the major cities under threat, already has more than 600,000 residents living below sea level. If average sea levels rose two feet, an additional 4.7 million people would be affected.
Shanghai’s population at each elevation
Like many of the most vulnerable places, Shanghai is situated on a soft, marshy delta, a landscape naturally prone to sinking, although humans often speed up the process by building structures and draining the groundwater below. The city has also been adding and reinforcing seawalls, and replacing concrete with wetland parks to absorb stormwater.
For places like Shanghai, the cost of defending the city is relatively modest compared with its value, said Jochen Hinkel, director of the Global Climate Forum, an international research organization based in Germany. “There’s so much capital concentrated on a small piece of land,” he said.
But not all places have the resources to protect themselves. Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, is expected to swell to over 50 million people by 2050, and will rely extensively on borrowed money to prepare for the worst.
Dhaka’s population at each elevation
Bangladesh, a low-lying delta nation, is experiencing more volatile monsoons and stronger cyclones as the planet warms. Villages have already been erased as the tides rise and rivers in the region change shape. Saltwater tides have ruined farmland, driving rural residents to the already-crowded capital.
The limits to adaptation
In the United States, a two-foot increase in sea levels wouldn’t affect as many people as in parts of Asia, but the price of adaptation would be astronomical. And even in the wealthiest country in the world, flood defenses aren’t bulletproof.
When the network of pumps and levees failed during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the catastrophe killed 1,400 people and displaced more than a million. Recovery in New Orleans has cost about $140 billion. Dozens of smaller communities along the Gulf Coast may not be so lucky.
120,000 people within 2 feet of high tide
Areas protected
by levees
125,000
Coastal cities elsewhere are bracing for higher sea levels. It would cost $13.6 billion to shield part of the San Francisco waterfront. Farther inland in California, it would take $2 billion to improve protections in Stockton. Across the country, a giant barrier at New York City’s harbor could cost $119 billion.
Yet people and buildings continue to accumulate in harm’s way. Miami’s population and real estate values have exploded in recent years, despite the fact that the city is notoriously difficult to protect.
Clearer answers about if, and when, Thwaites could collapse may make all the difference in how well coastal areas are able to adapt. “The value of the information is grotesquely higher than what we’ve invested in it,” Dr. Alley said.
Under President Trump, the United States has abandoned research that could better forecast the effects of Antarctica’s melting ice. It has also promoted the use and burning of fossil fuels, adding to the greenhouse gas emissions that are dangerously heating the planet. That could speed up the glacier’s collapse.
The fallout from decisions made today may not be felt immediately, Dr. Strauss said, but “this is what we’re signing up the future for.”
Methodology
The Times’s analysis includes cities with 300,000 residents or more and within 100 miles of the coast.
It used elevation data from Climate Central’s CoastalDEM 3.0 to calculate the average high tides at each location. This model reflects local water levels more accurately than global averages. It used data from the European Commission’s Global Human Settlement Layer (GHS-UCDB) for city boundaries and Worldpop’s 2026 data for population estimates.
The sea level rise scenarios in this article focus only on the effects from Antarctica. The continent is expected to lose its gravitational pull on ocean water as it loses ice. As that happens, parts of the Northern Hemisphere, including the United States and much of Asia, will experience higher-than-average effects in sea level rise than places closer to Antarctica.
The maps and total population numbers are adjusted to reflect this dynamic, using data from Jerry Mitrovica, professor of geophysics at Harvard. They do not account for similar dynamics from Greenland’s ice loss, or for any other influences that may cause an uneven distribution of sea level rise.
Science
I had to man up and get a mammogram
I show up for my appointment. A nurse asks me to get undressed from the waist up and put on a gown with the opening in front. For the life of me, I can’t figure out the correct way to tie the gown’s tassels. When I mention this feat of incompetence to the technologist inside the examining room, she tells me I could’ve just taken off my shirt. The nurse, she says, is “not used to male patients for mammograms.”
Thus began my first of what will be many regular mammogram screenings, screenings that, as a man, I never expected I’d need. I guess that nurse didn’t expect it either.
Let’s be clear, the breast cancer statistics for women are downright frightening: One in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. For men, it’s only 1 in 726. Looking at those numbers, it’s obvious and even reasonable to understand why breast cancer is treated as a greater health threat for women. But much of the culture surrounding the disease seems ensconced in a gendered mold, including those pink awareness ribbons, pink merchandise, wigs, sisterhood and the general idea that men don’t have breasts in the first place, so why on earth would they have to worry about getting breast cancer?
In fact, some of us do have to worry. Breast cancer in men isn’t so rare that it hasn’t affected a few male celebrities, like KISS drummer Peter Criss, actor Richard Roundtree (star of “Shaft”), and famous by association, Beyoncé’s father, Mathew Knowles. Despite these high-profile diagnoses, the perception of breast cancer as a threat to men’s health has struggled to go mainstream.
Cheri Ambrose founded the Male Breast Cancer Global Alliance more than a decade ago after learning her friend’s husband received a breast cancer diagnosis. She looked on the internet for some information about it. “And to my surprise, there was nothing out there for men,” she tells me. “It was crickets.”
Dr. Aditya Bardia is a UCLA breast cancer oncologist who’s been in the field for 15 years and, in that time, has treated over 20 men. He says that men should watch out for lumps, pain, discomfort or nipple inversion. “If you have any of that, get it checked out with an ultrasound,” says Bardia. “Otherwise, if a man is only at average risk, then a mammogram is not necessary. But if he has BRCA and a family history, then a mammogram is recommended.”
The genetic risk factor
Those major risk indicators are what ushered me into my own cancer prevention safari. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000, and my grandmother was diagnosed around a decade earlier. Add to this the fact that I have an Ashkenazi background, and I’m about as at-risk for breast cancer as any man can be.
To get a more accurate genetic indicator of cancer risk, my mother encouraged me to get my DNA tested for the BRCA1 gene mutation. Sure enough, I tested positive for BRCA1, and now my doctors and I are on high alert not just for breast cancer but also linked cancers like prostate and pancreatic cancer. (While it’s not public record if Richard Roundtree was BRCA1 positive, he survived his bout with breast cancer only to pass away decades later from pancreatic cancer, suggesting that he possibly carried the gene mutation.)
The mammogram experience
After testing positive for BRCA1, the geneticist I spoke with emphasized that my biggest new health concern would be prostate cancer, so I was a little bit surprised when my general practitioner gave me a referral for my first mammogram. I had no idea what to expect.
This is where I have to say that the scope of what I don’t know about women’s health is probably wider than I’d care to admit. My first exposure to the realities of what a mammogram procedure actually entails came from watching the pilot episode of “Girls5eva.” We first meet Sara Bareilles’ character while she’s in the middle of getting one, latched in somewhat medieval fashion to a mechanical vice that towers high over her head. I knew uncomfortable breast squeezing was involved; I just didn’t realize a machine did all the work. “Girls5eva,” if you’re unfamiliar, is not an old show, which means I’ve been unaware for most of my life how a mammogram actually works.
Still, as I headed to my appointment, I wondered, because I’m a man, how my own mammogram would differ from the one I saw Sara Bareilles getting on TV. It turns out, it wasn’t very different at all.
After getting rid of that gown, the technician positioned me chest-forward against her own mechanical vice. I was instructed to hold my breath while the machine gave me two tight squeezes on the left and two tight squeezes on the right, each squeeze lasting a few seconds. Yes, this was uncomfortable, but comparatively breezy as far as medical procedures go — simple, brief and noninvasive. My greatest irrational fear was that the machine might squeeze far tighter than necessary and I’d just be stuck there in immense pain until someone unplugged the cord. Of course, that did not happen. Actually, nothing else happened. I was in and out of the building in under 15 minutes.
The results? “No significant masses, calcifications or other findings are seen in either breast.” Good to know.
Navigating, and breaking down, the gender stigma
The mammogram itself was a piece of cake, yet I have to acknowledge that there were times on this journey of cancer risk self-discovery when I felt like a tourist prying into someone else’s health narrative. It wasn’t just the incident with the gown, or the geneticist assuring me that prostate cancer would be my major BRCA-related concern. While filling out a required questionnaire before scheduling my mammogram, I had to answer questions like, “Have you had an entire breast removed?” and “Does your bra size exceed 42DD?” I answered no, but if there had been an “N/A” option, I would’ve gone with that instead.
Bardia acknowledged the disconnect. “Because it’s relatively rare for men, guidelines and management for men are informed by the guidelines and management for women,” he tells me.
In a different context, some people could misinterpret these gendered hiccups as microaggressions. I don’t personally feel that way, but I’m trying to be fair, taking into account both the overwhelming impact breast cancer inflicts on women’s bodies in much greater numbers and the stigmatic pain points that men might be experiencing in their own breast cancer journeys.
Let’s face it: The stigma for men is real and it has consequences. “Even though it’s much more rare, the mortality rate for men is 19% higher for breast cancer than for women,” says Ambrose. “That’s because of lack of awareness and, I think, the stigma.”
A big part of that stigma, Ambrose believes, is the unfortunate proliferation of associating breast cancer with the color pink. “Pink is not a cure,” she says. “Sadly, it’s become a moneymaker for everyone during October, and not just the breast cancer organizations. People are making pink bagels, pink pens and even little pink ducks. People are making money off of it. And honestly, it’s not pink, it’s not fluffy, it’s not a happy disease. It’s breast cancer. And anyone going through it, male or female, or any gender, the pink ribbon is definitely stigmatizing.”
Even Mathew Knowles has publicly fiddled with the true name of his diagnosis, opting instead for the not-quite-accurate “chest cancer” and also “male breast cancer,” which falsely implies a masculine version of the disease.
But I can’t help but wonder if some of the stigma comes from other places as well. In parts of America, the idea of a man doing anything that can be perceived as feminine is politically charged. I also don’t need to point out that we live in a time of aggressive transphobia, which factors heavily in today’s divisive politics. For some political leaders, there’s nothing scarier than the possibility of sharing a public restroom with a woman who was born a man. Even drag queens can’t read books to children at the library without getting political blowback. Under this societal construct, how are men supposed to take seriously a disease that bears the name of a body part so associated with the opposite gender?
Then again, Peter Criss spent his entire career wearing makeup to look like a glam kitty cat, but if that didn’t stop him and his KISS bandmates from earning Kennedy Center Honors last year from our current president, then I don’t think it should stop anyone from heeding Criss’ advice to take charge of our own health.
I’m grateful to not feel bothered by this perceived stigma. I can understand it, but I can also roll with the feminized aspects. I guess if I’ve learned anything from this experience, it’s that everyone has breasts — just different kinds and all of them prone to disease. After all, what part of my body went into those mechanical vices during my mammogram?
In the days after my appointment, I saw a few friends I hadn’t seen in a while. When they asked what was new, I told them I’d just had my first mammogram. Some of them, men and women, thought I was kidding, but I assured them it was no joke.
I share this anecdote with Ambrose and she dives right in, “You helped spread awareness and break down the stigma,” she says, with some gratitude I wasn’t expecting. “That’s what each person who tells their story does.”
-
Oklahoma6 days agoFamily rallies around Oklahoma father after head-on crash
-
Detroit, MI1 day agoDrummer Brian Pastoria, longtime Detroit music advocate, dies at 68
-
Nebraska1 week agoWildfire forces immediate evacuation order for Farnam residents
-
Georgia4 days agoHow ICE plans for a detention warehouse pushed a Georgia town to fight back | CNN Politics
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMassachusetts community colleges to launch apprenticeship degree programs – The Boston Globe
-
Alaska5 days agoPolice looking for man considered ‘armed and dangerous’
-
Colorado1 week ago‘It’s Not a Penalty’: Bednar Rips Officials For MacKinnon Ejection | Colorado Hockey Now
-
Southwest1 week agoTalarico reportedly knew Colbert interview wouldn’t air on TV before he left to film it