Anti-Perspirants — Not a Breast Cancer Risk
I’m a medical doctor, board-certified in both anatomic and clinical pathology. I
operate the world’s largest free online personalized health information service.
I have received several copies of an inflammatory E-mail that is making rounds
right now (spring 1999). According to the anonymous author, "the leading cause
of breast cancer is antiperspirants."
As I’ve noted elsewhere, life has taught me never to attribute to malice what is
adequately explained by stupidity. People like to believe lies that make them
feel morally and intellectually superior.
This particular one, however, is egregious.
Breast cancer is an ancient disease, and was very common in the descriptions of
old Roman physicians. It’s also common in animals. And if you control for the
fact that more women are living longer and having fewer children (childbearing
exerts some protective effect), there’s been no clear increase in the rate of
breast cancer in the past 100 years despite the introduction of antiperspirants.
Here are the specific claims, and why they are wrong.
(1.) According to the E-mail, "the human body has a few areas that it uses to
purge toxins; behind the knees, behind the ears, groin area, and armpits. The
toxins are purged in the form of perspiration.". The artificial wording of this
sentence is actually legalese. It is technically true, just in case the author
is hauled into court. But it is grossly misleading. All these parts of the body
produce sweat (just like everyplace else on the skin), and traces of metabolic
by-products which are mostly excreted by the kidneys do end up in the sweat. But
if sweat were the primary way in which people got rid of toxins, there would be
no need for people with kidney failure to go on dialysis. And if there were any
known substance that could be lost only in the armpit sweat, whether or not it
was concentrated there, the author would name it. If you’ll visit the sites of
other "independent health thinkers", you’ll discover that they often show
considerable (though selective) sophistication in biochemistry. The author of
this one knows that there is no such substance, so he/she hasn’t tried. If the
real author ever surfaces, I’ll place him/her in touch with the enema parlor
operators, who claim that toxins can only be removed their way.
(2.) The E-mail goes on to claim, "These toxins do not just magically disappear.
Instead, the body deposits them in the lymph nodes below the arms since it
cannot sweat them out. This causes a high concentration of toxins and leads to
cell mutations: a.k.a. CANCER." So what are these chemicals? The author won’t
say. Now, I have examined thousands of armpit lymph nodes from breast cancer
patients, and never seen any special deposits here. The author has a trilemma.
Either the chemicals are water-soluble and freely permeable to cell membranes
(in which case they would not be able to be concentrated in the lymph nodes), or
they are water-soluble and taken up actively by the lymph node cells (in which
case I would be able to see them under the microscope), or they are not
water-soluble (in which case they could not be lost in perspiration). What’s
more, the cells that give rise to breast cancers (breast epithelium) are not
even found in the lymph nodes of the armpit. And primary cancers very seldom
arise in these nodes. Again, the author’s non-use of biochemistry reveals
his/her fundamental ignorance or worse. There are several known mutagens in
normal feces, but no known mutagen that is selectively secreted in armpit sweat.
(3.) The E-mail continues, "Nearly all breast cancer tumors [sic.] occur in the
upper outside quadrant of the breast area.". This is a bald-faced lie. About 60%
of breast cancers arise here, because about 60% of the total breast tissue is
located here (i.e., all the breast tissue that is both above and lateral to the
nipple).
(4.) The E-mail goes on, "This is precisely where the lymph nodes are located."
Again, this one is written in laywer-language. The lymph nodes are above and
lateral to the nipple, but they are remote from the parts of the breast where
cancers begin.
(5.) The E-mail continues, "Additionally, men are less likely (but not
completely exempt) to develop breast cancer prompted by anti-perspirant usage
because most of the anti-perspirant product is caught in their hair and is not
directly applied to the skin." First of all, if my anti-perspirant is caught in
my own masculine armpit hair, then how come it does such a good job keeping me
from perspiring? The sweat glands are deep to the hair. And what about in those
parts of Europe where most of the women do not shave their armpits? You’d think
they’d have the same low rate of breast cancer as US males. And what about
groups of men in the US who usually shave their armpits? If the claim were true,
male bodybuilders and others would have more breast cancer than unshaved
European women.
(6.) The E-mail continues, "Women who apply anti-perspirant right after shaving
increase the risk further because shaving causes almost imperceptible nicks in
the skin, which give the chemicals entrance into the body from the armpit area."
Whoa. I thought the problem wasn’t that the chemicals were mutagens, but that
they caused naturally-occurring mutagens to accumulate. The author has
completely changed his/her proposed mechanism. And again, if this claim were
true, you would find a strikingly higher rate of breast cancer among women in
the US, where most shave their armpits, than in those parts of Europe where most
do not.
Reasonable people will differ about whether we should smell like nature
evidently intended. There’s some intriguing new work which suggests that our
personal armpit smells help us get chosen by mates who have different tissue
types, giving our children a better chance of resisting infections. Love may be
blind, but perhaps Love is not anosmic. Right or wrong, today it’s hard to keep
a real job if you have body odor. Antiperspirants offer some health advantages,
especially protecting the skin in hot environments and in invalids. Zirconium
and beryllium based products have produced a curious rash ("armpit sarcoid")
that’s a skin pathologist’s curiosity.
Pathologists are mostly not saints, and I’m certainly not one. But we tell the
truth, and mostly we deliver value. If you are the author of this E-mail, or
have passed it on, please reconsider your position. And if you wrote or passed
this E-mail knowing it to be false, I hope your "health" friends take you for
every penny you have.
There are no published studies in the refereed medical journals linking
antiperspirant use and breast cancer. Scientists thrive on finding out new
secrets of nature, and medical editors thrive on publishing credible evidence.
Today’s journals are full of accounts of whether this particular environmental
exposure can cause this particular disease. Of course, if you want to believe
conspiracy theories about ultrapowerful antiperspirant makers, that is your
business.
Here are all the sites I could find (May 1999) that present antiperspirants as
causing breast cancer. Four out of the five are selling deodorants that are not
antiperspirants, while the fifth is an anti-bra activist. Draw your own
conclusions.
Women’s Nutrition Center. Claims that "studies linking breast cancer to
underarm antiperspirants have been undertaken, but the manufacturers are too
powerful to allow this information to be publicized." So be good conspiracy
buffs, name some names, and give us the details yourselves.
Honeybee Gardens. "Why is natural deodorant so important? Simple. You’re 8
times more likely to develop breast cancer next to where you apply your
deodorant." Acutually, the author explains this means by comparison to the lower
inner quadrant — where there is only an eighth as much breast tissue.
Natural Mineral’s [sic.] Deodorants — merely claims a link between aluminum
and breast cancer, with no references. My search of the current NIH databank
reveals no such studies, leading to the obvious conclusion that somebody is
simply lying. (The link is now defunct — 12/21/99.)
Deodorant Stones — repeats the aluminum claim, with no references.
Anti-bra site makes the obviously false claim that "antiperspirants generally
use chemicals which cause the underlying lymph nodes in the underarm to become
constricted and subsequently block lymphatic drainage." If that were true, they
would cause lymphedema (obvious swelling), and you would see dilated lymphatics
in tissues from users. Neither happens.
You may use your antiperspirants without worrying about getting breast cancer
from them.
Meet Ed
Visitors since May 21, 1999:
Addendum: May 27, 1999: T– Z– wrote me to say that she is NOT the author of
the E-mail, and had nothing to do with it. A version has been circulating
listing her as the author. This is not the first quack E-mail to list a
randomly-selected or nonexistent author.
Addendum: Nov. 29, 1999: A correspondent sent me a version of the E-mail
claiming that a group at U. of Reading (UK), which has been studying
polychlorinated biphenyls with estrogenic activities in a mouse model of breast
cancer, have discovered a link between deodorant chemicals and breast cancer.
The actual paper ("A novel oestrogen-regulating gene in human breast cancer
cells") in J. Mol. Endocrin. 20(3), June, 1998, has nothing to do with
antiperspirants.
Addendum: Dec. 11, 1999. A correspondent has tried to reach the "Katrina Scott"
who’s listed as author of one version. She’s not. I’ve also learned that a
private E-mail of mine on the subject, which refers to "lawyer-talk", is making
the rounds without my permission. Somebody’s violated netiquette, but I’m
pleased that the truth is getting out, even it doesn’t show me at my most
tactful.
The Anti-Immunization Activists — A Pattern of Deception
Search this site for:
[This message contained attachments]