Mum was the word back in 1888 when it came to tackling armpit fragrance. A zinc oxide–based cream, “Mum,” was intro- duced to control the growth of bacteria that cause underarm odor. Its deodorant descendants today mostly contain alcohol or triclosan as antibacterial agents, with some pleasant masking fragrance thrown in. In 1902, Mum was joined by “Everyday,” the first antiperspirant. The active ingredient was aluminum chloride, which reacted with moisture to form gelatinous aluminum hydroxide, which in turn blocked sweat gland ducts. Unfortunately, it also irritated the skin and rotted clothing.
By 1947 it had been replaced by the less acidic aluminum chlorhydrate, which is still the mainstay of antiperspirants. Many current products are combinations of antiperspirants and deodorants. And “mum” is certainly not the word about them. The use of these products is being vociferously linked to breast cancer!
Claims of a connection between underarm cosmetics and breast cancer have long been circulating on the Internet. Experts have pretty much dismissed them for lack of evidence that any of the ingredients is carcinogenic, and because the suggestion that antiperspirants do harm by preventing the body from eliminating toxins is absurd. But a paper by Dr. Philippa Darbre of the University of Reading in England in 2004 proposed a novel mechanism by which underarm cosmetics may trigger cancer. The culprits being fingered this time are parabens, pre- servatives commonly used in a large variety of consumer prod- ucts. Darbre examined twenty tumors excised from breast cancer patients and found parabens in eighteen of these. She claims that these chemicals have estrogenic activity and there- fore could be expected to be involved in breast cancer. At first, it sounds like she has made a pretty good case. But wait a minute!
The mere presence of parabens in tumor tissue does not mean they caused the tumor. It is possible that tumors may retain parabens more efficiently than other tissues, and, more signifi- cantly, it is possible that comparable levels exist in healthy tissue. These questions cannot be answered because the researchers ran no controls; they did not investigate whether or not these preservatives were also present in healthy breast tissue. It’s a good bet they are. Parabens are commonly used in a variety of foods and cosmetics, and would be expected to show up every- where. In any case, even if parabens turn out to be cancer
culprits, there is no way to know that they found their way into breast cells from deodorants or antiperspirants rather than from a myriad of other products. Indeed, today, hardly any underarm cosmetics contain parabens.
Dr. Darbre did not investigate what sort of chemotherapy her now-famous twenty patients may have undergone. Since some drugs are preserved with parabens, this certainly would be relevant information. Nor did she determine whether the women had used antiperspirants or not. Surely, this would be an obvious question to raise. Indeed, scientists at the Fred Hutchinson Research Center in Seattle did raise it in 2002, and published their results in The Journal of the National Cancer
Institute. They investigated 813 women who had been diagnosed
with breast cancer, and compared their underarm cosmetic use to 793 randomly selected controls who were free of the disease. There was no link found between the use of antiperspirants or deodorants and breast cancer. This was a major epidemiological study, yet it was not referenced at all by Philippa Darbre, a case of scientific negligence.
Dr. Darbre also reports that tumors are more frequently found in the left breast, and suggests that this may be due to more women being right handed. These ladies would apply more antiperspirant or deodorant under their left arm. An interesting theory, but totally unsubstantiated. Nobody has studied whether or not right-handed people apply deodorants under their left arms more vigorously. Darbre also points out that there has been an increase in breast cancer rates since the 1970s and that this increase parallels the use of underarm cos- metics. Of course, such a relationship does not prove cause and effect. Most researchers believe the increase is due to an increase in obesity and to women having children later in life. Basically, there is room here for further investigation, but contrary to the
beliefs of the apocalyptic types out there, Darbre did not prove that antiperspirants or deodorants are a cause of breast cancer. Despite the preliminary nature of her study, Dr. Darbre has energetically voiced her views in the media. She was no doubt pleased to see a new study by Dr. Kris McGrath of Northwest- ern University, who surveyed some 400 breast cancer patients and found that those who shaved their armpits at least three times a week and applied deodorant at least twice a week were generally about fifteen years younger when they were diagnosed with the disease than women who did neither. Deodorant use or shaving alone was not linked to risk; only the combo was. McGrath suggests that nicks during shaving may pave the way for chemicals to enter the body. This is a rather tenuous argu- ment, given that they would end up in the bloodstream and not necessarily in breast tissue. As with Darbre’s experiment, there was no control group. We don’t know whether or not healthy women have a different pattern of shaving and deodorant use than breast cancer victims. Without this info, we can just as readily conclude that young women shave more frequently and use more deodorant than older ladies.
So where does it all leave us? It is comforting to know that the British, who use deodorants more than Italians, do not have a higher breast cancer rate. The Japanese, who spray and roll as often as Americans, have one of the lowest rates in the world. But those of you who have decided to go “au naturel” based on these studies can take solace in the fact that some researchers have found that underarm aromas may have an aphrodisiac effect. So go ahead and give l’air d’armpit a try. But don’t tell anyone I said this. Mum’s the word.