New evidence emerged today in the controversial debate over whether antiperspirants and deodorants are linked to soaring levels of breast cancer in the UK.
Scientists detected the preservative chemical parabens - used in some underarm products, make-up and foods - in samples of breast cancer tumours.
But the cosmetics industry and cancer experts urged the public not to panic over the new research, pointing out scientists had not found any causal link between the ingredients of the products and cancer
The possibility of chemicals in antiperspirants being linked to cancer first emerged on the Internet some years ago and has since been the subject of several studies, most notably by Dr Philippa Darbre from Reading University. She has previously said aluminium and zirconium in cosmetics could affect hormone levels, raising the risk of cancer.
Her latest study, published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology, looked at 20 human breast tumours, measuring the concentration of parabens in the tissue.
Her team found the chemicals were present in a form suggesting that their route of entry was topical - through the skin - rather than oral.
Dr Darbre said: "Parabens are used as preservatives in thousands of cosmetic, food and pharmaceutical products, but this is the first study to show their accumulation in human tissues.
"It demonstrates if people are exposed to these chemicals, then the chemicals will accumulate in their bodies."
She added: "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 antiperspirants and deodorants."
The researchers acknowledged more work needed to be done in this area, including looking at paraben levels in normal tissue rather than tumours.
Dr Chris Flower from the CTPA pointed out 96pc of deodorants and antiperspirants used in the UK did not contain parabens.
And Dr Richard Sullivan, head of clinical programmes at Cancer Research UK, said: "Although this is an interesting study it should be noted the sample size is very small. There is also no robust population-based evidence to suggest a link."