Cosmetic chemicals found in breast tumours

Cosmetic chemicals found in breast tumours
12:24 12 January 04
Preservative chemicals found in samples of breast tumours probably came from underarm deodorants, UK scientists have claimed.

Their analysis of 20 breast tumours found high concentrations of para-hydroxybenzoic acids (parabens) in 18 samples. Parabens can mimic the hormone estrogen, which is known to play a role in the development of breast cancers. The preservatives are used in many cosmetics and some foods to increase their shelf-life.

"From this research it is not possible to say whether parabens actually caused these tumours, but they may certainly be associated with the overall rise in breast cancer cases," says Philip Harvey, an editor of the Journal of Applied Toxicology, which published the research.

"Given that breast cancer is the largest killer of women and a very high percentage of young women use underarm deodorants, I think we should be carrying out properly funded, further investigations into parabens and where they are found in the body," Harvey told New
Scientist.

Chemical cousins

The new research was led by molecular biologist Philippa Darbre, at the University of Reading. She says that the ester-bearing form of parabens found in the tumours indicates it came from something applied to the skin, such as an underarm deodorant, cream or body spray. When parabens are eaten, they are metabolised and lose the ester group, making them less strongly estrogen-mimicking.
"One would expect tumours to occur evenly, with 20 per cent arising in each of the five areas of the breast," Darbre told New Scientist. "But these results help explain why up to 60 per cent of all breast tumours are found in just one-fifth of the breast - the upper-outer quadrant, nearest the underarm."
However, Chris Flower, director general of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and
Perfumery Association, challenged the study's findings. "There are almost no deodorants and body sprays that contain parabens," he says.
"Although they are in most other creams and cosmetics, the safety margin is huge and they would not have any effect on enhancing growth of new tumours."
Darbre replies that deodorants and antiperspirants have only stopped containing parabens in the last few months and that the tumours she studied occurred prior to this.
None of the deodorants on sale in two British high street shops contained any parabens, a survey by New Scientist confirmed. However, many other products including body lotions, face creams, cleansers and shampoos did. Some products contained as many as five different kinds of parabens.

Skin deep
Previously published studies have shown that parabens are able to be absorbed through the skin and to bind to the body's estrogen-receptors, where they can encourage breast cancer cell growth.
But Flower maintains that the amount of parabens absorbed by the skin is very low and the parabens are "metabolised by the skin cells to produce products that have no estrogenic activity".
Darbre's research did not look at the concentrations of parabens in other areas of the breast or body tissues and Harvey cautions that the significance of the chemicals in tumour tissue should not be over-interpreted.
Darbre says she has not used cosmetic products, including underarm deodorants, for eight years. She recommends that other women do the same "until their safety can be established".
Journal reference: Journal of Applied Toxicology (vol 24, p5)

Bill Gates didn't do that, Apple did. I remember, I was in the business at the time.

Quick history lesson. IBM, crown prince of the mainframe, ignored the rise of personal computing until it was almost too late. Seeing the writing on the wall (and it was Apple shaped, with a bite out) the only way to get back into the market and ahead of Apple was to throw their design open to third-world manufacturers to build compatibles. They needed an operating system quickly. Forward Bill Gates, owner (but not author - he got it in a garage sale or something) of QDOS, Quick & Dirty Operating System (honestly, it was). Bill Gates milked the IBM whirlwind and got rich.

Windows never made computers a cent cheaper, and Microsoft never made PCs at all. So the low price of PC's has nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with IBM's 1 Big Mistake.

How many times do I

Hmmm ... sounds like Andy learned his PR lessons very well ...

Unfortunately ... that is amongst his most ridiculous ever statements.

I will address just the breast implant issue ... one I've spent over 8 years studying ...

Andy has ad hommed me an "ignoramus" regarding my beliefs on this controversial issue ... one that the Junk Science Campaign is now spinning like a top because of Inamed's recent failure to get "safety" approval for their potentially very dangerous silicone gel implants.

In another part of this thread ... Andy talks about "fraud" ... again
Inamed comes to mind. Here are links to their security fraud ...
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16466.htm
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-41751.htm

Over 40,000 women received a paltry sum for the injuries from implant complications and failures ...

Are they _OUT OF BUSINESS_ ?

By no means ... far, far from it.

Andy's Theory #1 shot.

If you look in another branch of this thread you'll see that on 14 Jan I posted a (US) table of diagnosis by age.

It clearly shows that bc rate increases with age, levelling off at around
75, and that the statement mentioned above was a misconception.

That isn't true either. I think for under 25's, for example road traffic accidents account for more deaths.
You might be able to find a narrow age band where it was true, but I doubt it, and the article was not at all specific, and therefore more likely was just plain old -wrong-. And the writer (Philip Harvey) is a journalist, not a doctor. He is an editor of a medical journal, it is a leap of faith to assume he is a doctor too.

His point would have been perfectly well made had he said that breast cancer was a major killer of women, which is true all around the world. I think the word "largest" was journalistic hyperbole and nothing else. I don't think anyone would argue with his basic premise that the finding that these compounds are concentrated in parts of the body justifies further research.
Speaking as a one-time scientist (who does not use deodorants) I do not at all think that this finding alone justifies changing our habits or product formulations. It is about as significant as the statistic that in a particlar population coffee drinkers get less heart disease than tea drinkers - it shows an association, not a cause.

One error in a reporter's story does NOT make it complete nonsense ...

No one is saying this is definitive ... science unfolds ... try this version by the BBC:

Concern over deodorant chemicals
The chemicals were found in breast cancer tumours
Chemicals from underarm deodorants and other cosmetics can build up inside the body, according to a study.
British researchers have found traces of chemicals called parabens in tissue taken from women with breast cancer.

While there is no evidence they cause cancer, the scientists have called for the use of parabens to be reviewed.

The cosmetics industry insists the chemicals, which are used as preservatives and are approved for use by regulators, are safe.

Dr Philippa Darbre and colleagues at the University of Reading carried out tests on samples of 20 different human breast tumours.

Writing in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, they say they found traces of parabens in every sample.

Parabens have a very, very good safety profile

Chris Flower,
Cosmetic Toiletry & Perfumery Association
Their tests suggested the chemicals had seeped into the tissue after being applied to the skin.

"This is the first study to show their accumulation in human tissues," said Dr Darbre.

"It demonstrates that if people are exposed to these chemicals, then the chemicals will accumulate in their bodies."

'Drive tumours'

Dr Darbre said there may be reason for people to be concerned about the findings.

"Their detection in human breast tumours is of concern since parabens have been shown to be able to mimic the action of the female hormone oestrogen," she said.

"Oestrogen can drive the growth of human breast tumours. It would therefore seem especially prudent to consider whether parabens should continue to be used in such a wide range of cosmetics applied to the breast area including deodorants."

Dr Philip Harvey, European editor of the journal, said the findings should be interpreted cautiously.

"Further work is required to examine any association between oestrogenic and other chemicals in underarm cosmetics and breast cancer."

We have an enormous amount of information which supports the safety of these chemicals and their use in cosmetics

Chris Flower
Cosmetic Toiletry & Perfumery Association

Chris Flower, director general of the UK's Cosmetic Toiletry &
Perfumery Association, welcomed the study.

"It is welcome additional information and we will want to examine the

"However, parabens have a very, very good safety profile. We have an enormous amount of information which supports the safety of these chemicals and their use in cosmetics."

Delyth Morgan of Breakthrough Breast Cancer said: "This extremely small study does not demonstrate a direct causal link between deodorant or antiperspirant use and developing breast cancer.

"Further research is needed to establish the source of the chemicals found in the breast tumour samples and what, if any, the relationship is to breast cancer."

A spokesman for the UK's Department of Trade and Industry said government scientists would examine the findings.

"Parabens are approved for use in the UK and in Europe and all the information we have suggests they are safe to use.

"However, British scientists will examine this study."

Dr Richard Sullivan, head of clinical programmes at Cancer Research
UK, said there was no evidence that deodorants were linked to an increased risk of breast cancer.

He said the latest study was very small, and had by no means produced conclusive results.

"The increased incidence we are seeing of breast cancer can be explained by many other factors," he said.

Some confusion here?

actually says

"A small survey by New Scientist of three British high street shops and one supermarket found deodorants in each that contained parabens, although most of these products did not. However, many other products used under the arm commonly contained parabens, such as body sprays, hair removal creams and shaving gels. Body lotions, face creams, cleansers and shampoos also frequently contained parabens." .. which is not the same as printed below.

The point I was making (in alt.support.cancer.breast) is that if you add deodorants and antiperspirants together only a small proportion contain parabens, as antiperspirants don't have them, but there are quite a number of deodorants around with them. Checking this evening in a supermarket, some have gone from the shelves but some remain.
Some body moisturisers including some labelled "dermatological" have

stop including parabens in anything which is designed to remain on the skin.

I disagree that Breast Cancer does not affect women over 60....My husband just lost 2 family members to Breast Cancer....One was 84 and the other was 90. So who ever says that Breast Cancer doesn't affect anyone older than 60 is WRONG!

plasticisers used in commercial plastic products seems to have attracted little research effort.

I thought there was some research going on in this area. I am not certain how carcinogenic plastics are, per se, but they may directly do something that affects hormones and results in overproduction of some type(s) of estrogens.

This is normal for a monopoly. It doesn't make it or its products good.

But I'm not going to get drawn into a technical discussion about software

it shows an association, not a cause.

It was only around 5 years ago that true "causation" was proven with tobacco and lung cancer ... even tho the association was known for years ...

That is why the premature and corporate funded "conclusions" on such matters as breast implant harm are just junk science.

Exactly ... the game is to play "reasonable doubt" until the manufacturers of harmful products figure out how to escape liability.

Breast implants have been on the market for 40 years ... it's only been in the last decade that the government has really looked at the monumental harm done by them.

<< >
Maybe, or maybe deodorants don't cause cancer. Who knows?>>

There was breast cancer before deodorants...

Men and women both use deodorants, probably in more or less equal numbers, yet breast cancer in men is rare. Wonder why that should be.

Maybe, or maybe deodorants don't cause cancer. Who knows?
There was breast cancer before deodorants...
There are many different kinds of breast cancer, &amp; probably many causes, .. some of which might (partly) be, the chemicals in some deoderant &amp; make-up, ... but I wouldn't wait for the govt to confirm it.

How long did it take the govt to officially decide, that smoking &amp; second-hand smoke might be health risks?

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions

refrain judgement until a satisfactory study has been done.

...lisa (who has never had to use deodorant but had breast cancer anyway)>>

Agree and am coming from same perspective.
As far as increased incidence of breast cancer, particularly in selected more affluent communities in California, I think it would be interesting to do a study to see if there is greater use of bottled water which is stored in plastic bottles. About 8 years ago, while researching early pubertal development, I came across studies which linked possibiity of such to food stored in plastic containers which had propensity to result in increased estrogen levels for consumers of such. I saw a red flag--because of what I did only with our youngest, who happened to have this 'problem.' I nursed all 3 of my kids exclusively until 6 mos. of age. I did something differently with our youngest than I did with the others. I went back to work earlier but made sure she had breast milk by nursing one side and pumping the other. I stored the milk in plastic playtex nursers and then when it was time to feed--just nuked them. I did this way past age it was needed. She never had cows milk as young child -- at least in a bottle -- only breast milk and she stopped nursing at 21 mos, although am not sure I was still pumping for the last few mos.
One of the reasons I nursed my kids as long as I did was that I hoped that it would add further protection for me against breast cancer along with being 'healthier' for them. It didn't work.
Anyway, I know that in some of the more affluent California communities more of the women belong to gyms or are involved in outdoor sports where they would take extra water along.
Interestingly, it takes about 8 ot 10 years for breast cancer to be detected after it first starts, on the average. That is about the time frame that I got dx'd with b.c. and when the bottled water companies switched from glass to plastic bottles. We use Arrowhead--and got it because of the fluoridated water. I don't believe the flouridated water had anything to do with it, but I am not so sure about the plastic bottles. Again, if one does research on increase in estrogen levels, there does appear to be an association between such and at the least cooking and possibly of storage and/or cooking of food in plastic containers.

Have to agree with you strongly, Nessa ... think someone was just misinformed on that.

I'm going to look up the ages at diagnosis if I can find them ...

Maybe, or maybe deodorants don't cause cancer. Who knows?

There's a very telling moment in the film "Pirates of Silicon Valley" (I believe that's the name) when Gates is negotiating with IBM ...

Right before he left ... the software rights were brought up ... Gates of course wanted them ... IBM nodded and waved him away with something like, "Sure ... all of the profits are in the hardware anyway" (my recollection from a few years ago) ...

<< Men and women both use deodorants, probably in more or less equal numbers, yet breast cancer in men is rare. Wonder why that should be. >>

And some don't use underarm deodorants. I rarely perspired under my arms for the past 10 years or more, so I didn't need an underarm deodorant. (No, I wasn't fooled--have very good sense of smell--and one of our kids very much needed to use one at a young age).

There's one major problem here. It makes the rest of what this guy is saying extremely suspect : if not complete nonsense. Breast Cancer is
NOT the " largest killer of women ".