Ladies: think twice before you powder your undercarriage. In the International Journal of Cancer last month, a study of 3,000 women reported that those who regularly talced their underwear had a 17% higher risk of ovarian cancer than those who did not. (Ovarian cancer kills more than 4,000 women a year.) This follows a number of studies that have made a similar link, including an extensive one a few years back, which suggested that such use of talc might increase the risk of ovarian cancer by 33% (from a baseline risk of 2% over a lifetime).

And talc isn't the only commonly used product to have aroused suspicion recently. Just last week it was reported that new research funded by the British breast cancer charity Genesis suggests a potential link between aluminium in antiperspirants and breast cancer. Aluminium salts are widely used in antiperspirants, as they are highly effective in sweat prevention. A small-scale study carried out by Dr Chris Exley of Keele University found that - of breast tissue taken from 17 patients who had had mastectomies - "all had higher concentrations [of aluminium] in the breast tissue closest to the underarm". Exley went on to explain that he doesn't actually know that "that aluminium originated from antiperspirant, but one can put two and two together and make a guess on that ... Aluminium is known to cause cancer in animal models. We need to make sure aluminium in antiperspirants isn't contributing to breast cancer".

Studies such as these seem to crop up almost weekly, raising a host of questions regarding our beauty and upkeep regimes. Is all our primping and preening really damaging us? We have become adept at reading food labels, but close scrutiny of the ingredients in our toiletries and cosmetics (which companies are required to list in full) is far less common. Hardly surprising. Scan the label on any number of products and the profusion of unpronounceable chemical names can make eyes glaze over.

While numerous studies prompt concern about many of our cosmetic products, conclusive proof is often elusive. In fact, the recent worries raised about antiperspirants have been strongly rebutted by respected bodies.
The Guardian