Is it true that deodorants and antiperspirants containing aluminum cause cancer?

It is widely believed that the use of deodorants and antiperspirants containing aluminum salts increases the risk of developing certain types of cancer. We checked whether this fear is justified.

IN Internet Can meet articles, reporting, that the use of products with aluminum salts can develop breast cancer. Explain this is because “aluminum salts have an effect similar to the human hormone estrogen. And the relationship between hormone levels, particularly estrogen, and the development of breast cancer is well established. Estrogen promotes the growth of tumor cells.” Approved also that, when accumulated, aluminum salts can even get into breast milk.

In addition, publications on social networks scare because the use of aluminum-containing cosmetics provokes Alzheimer's disease and other dangerous diseases. For example, they write that “aluminum negatively affects metabolism, especially mineral metabolism, the function of the nervous system, and affects the reproduction and growth of cells. The most important clinical manifestations of neurotoxic effects include disturbances in motor activity, convulsions, decreased or loss of memory, psychopathic reactions <…> [Excess aluminum] causes dental fluorosis and specific bone damage (bone fluorosis); may cause or intensify new bone formations.” An additional argument for opponents of aluminum is that before performing mammography, doctors strongly recommend do not use antiperspirants.

First you need to define what deodorant is different from antiperspirant. Deodorant eliminates unpleasant odor, and antiperspirant blocks sweating. Aluminum salts in cosmetics create a “plug” inside the sweat duct, blocking the release of sweat to the outside; therefore, these substances are simply not needed in a deodorant. However, many antiperspirants contain aluminum salts. The main argument of aluminum opponents is study 2007 by British chemist Chris Exley from Keele University. He studied samples of amputated breast tissue from women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer. Exley noticed that the concentration of aluminum salts in them was higher than normal in humans. The scientist suggested that it was the accumulation of aluminum that caused the development of cancer.

It is immediately worth noting that it is Exley who has recently been actively popularizes misinformation that aluminum contained in vaccines leads to the development of severe forms of autism in children. Exley is currently active published on Instagram, through which he spreads false information and collects donations. In particular, one of the largest sponsors his activities - Robert Kennedy Jr., a well-known proponent of many conspiracy theories.

In addition to Exley's publications, opponents of antiperspirants with aluminum cite study 2016, Swiss scientists demonstrated that long-term exposure to aluminum salts promotes the growth of malignant tumors in mice. It’s worth noting right away: the authors of the publication stipulate in it that the experimental data are limited. At the same time, there are many other studies that refute the connection between aluminum and malignant neoplasms.

Even before the publication of Exley's work, in 2002, scientists interviewed volunteers aged 20 to 74 years: 813 women with breast cancer and 793 healthy women. They were asked whether they use antiperspirant or deodorant, shave their underarms, and apply cosmetics within the first hour of shaving. No statistically significant difference was found. In 2006 study with a similar design was repeated in Iraq. The groups were smaller: only 54 women with breast cancer and 50 women without it, but even there no pattern could be found. Scientists have concluded that preference for one or another cosmetic product does not increase the risk of cancer, unlike the use of oral contraceptives and family history.

Research also showthat the skin of the armpits absorbs an extremely small amount of aluminum - about 0.012%, this is several times less than the amount of aluminum that enters our body every day with food. In as simple a language as possible explained This is dermatovenerologist Alexey Edemsky: “For you to develop cancer, you need to not just apply antiperspirant, but eat it.” Systematic review 2014 fails summary: neither aluminum nor its oxides, hydroxides or soluble salts show any carcinogenic activity; there is no evidence linking these substances to the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease; the substance and its derivatives do not have genotoxic activity.

The American Cancer Society also finds a simple explanation is that most breast tumors occur in the upper outer quarter (proponents of the aluminum theory attribute this to the proximity of the area to the armpit). In this part of the breast there is initially more breast tissue, and in other parts adipose tissue predominates, therefore, the chance of malignant degeneration is higher in itself. In a similar way, they debunk the argument that men are less likely to get cancer because they are less likely to shave their armpits. In fact, men also have less of this same breast tissue than women, which is why cancer does not occur as often. Moreover proportion risk is close to ideal: women have approximately 100 times more breast tissue, and their risk of developing breast cancer is approximately 100 times higher than men. The American Cancer Society also notesthat parabens in antiperspirants also do not increase the risk of cancer. Cancer Research UK position agrees with the views of American colleagues. The Canadian Cancer Research Center is also unanimous with them. society and American National fund breast cancer

Thus, long-term studies in different countries and the positions of the largest oncology associations clearly indicate that the use of antiperspirants with aluminum salts in the composition does not increase the risk of developing breast cancer.

Not true

What do our verdicts mean?

Read on the topic:

1. Is it true that wearing a too-tight bra causes breast cancer?
2. Is it true that the COVID-19 vaccination site can attract magnets?