THERE is a familiar ring to this week’s “breast cancer link to deodorants” headlines. Scare stories saying the same thing have been circulating on the internet since 1999.

This new story is based on legitimate research by molecular biologists at the University of Reading. But if it has sent your underarm smellies into the bin, think again. In a week of worrying health stories, salmon and mobile phones among them, this is one of the flimsiest.

If it were true that underarm antiperspirants and deodorants cause breast cancer, then Britain would be badly hit. We use more of them than any other European country. But the research does not actually target these products.

What the cancer researcher Dr Philippa Darbre found was that parabens, preservative chemicals found in thousands of cosmetic, pharmaceutical and cosmetic products, were present in all the 20 samples of breast tumours that she had studied. But there is no evidence that parabens cause cancer, no indication of how they got into breast tissue, or what their origin was.

Dr Darbre has a hypothesis. She says parabens can mimic the action of the hormone oestrogen, which is known to drive the growth of breast tumours. Such chemicals are likely to accumulate in breast tissue because of its high fat content. She hypothesises that underarm cosmetics are the most likely source because they are applied directly to the skin near the point where many breast tumours first develop.

But this is conjecture. Neither her research paper nor the journal that published it says the study indicates anything other than the fact that more research is needed.

If the public should be worried about anything, it isn’t underarm cosmetics. The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA) says that the vast majority of underarm costmetics do not contain parabens — and never have. Dr Dabre insists that many did three years ago when the tumour tissue samples were taken, and one or two still do. But according to the CTPA, the chemicals are far more likely to be in body and face lotions, creams and sprays. Their natural ingredients mean that they may need a preservative. To check products, look for words that include “paraben” in the listed ingredients.

“Parabens are the most likely preservative to be used because of their excellent safety record,” says Dr Chris Flower, a toxicologist and the director-general of the CTPA.

Somewhere along the line, the public seems to be getting the wrong message. The research isn’t insignicant: breast cancer charities are welcoming it as a first piece in a jigsaw of a hundred pieces. And we are right to be mindful of substances we put on our bodies.

But with the enthusiasm of the media, and the willingness of the author to publicise her natural worries that her theory is right, the science is getting lost. The focus all too easily shifts from the research itself to the hypothesis behind it. This is how scares develop.

In areas such as cancer, where our fears make us vulnerable, we all need to be savvy. Pamela Goldberg, the chief executive of the Breast Cancer Campaign, recalls past scares. Some are urban myths, such as a knock to the breast or underwired bras causing breast cancer.

Others, such as the theory that abortions cause breast cancer, have been largely discredited. And one or two, such as the link with the pill and HRT, hold some truth.

“Most studies aren’t clear-cut in what they find and many indicate only a small statistical increased risk,” Goldberg says.

Explore Health News

• Swine flu

Times Recommends

• The bright side of this winter rain
• Story behind the picture: Snow Leopard, 2008
• Times Charity Appeal: The Place2Be