Furthermore, many of the problems created by breast reduction surgery are related to the obscuring the knowledge of the fat/breast size relation. For example, a woman who is fat all over, is, in the breast reduction promotional efforts, made to feel that it is specifically her breasts that are over large. If her ass is fat, her face is fat, her arms are fat, her back is fat, her upper abdomen is fat, it is certainly not surprising that her breasts will be fat.
But in the shills that started in 1992 (magazine articles, celebrities like Roseanne) the word was sent out that anything bigger than a D (such as DD and beyond) was the symptom of abnormality, and no mention at all was made of body fat content. Hence, the shills took advantage of body image issues related to fat and breast size to promote their surgery, using overweight women as the primary demographic.
Obviously, if they were to build an industry of breast reduction that matched the profits of breast implants, they needed a similar sized pool of potential clients to perform this on. If you are dealing with a population of women of healthy body fat, the small breasted women (potential clients for breast augmentation) will be many, many times the number of really big breasted ones, so there is no way on earth that the business profits of reductions will match those of augmentations.
In order to make the reduction profits match or exceed the augmentation profits (as has been the case in USA since the early shills of 1992), it was necessary to exploit the overweight women fully, and this was done by declaring *all big breasts as bad, regardless of body fat content*.