We can help you claim
compensation following an accident
illness or injury - nationwide
Call: 0800 10 757 95
It is an age-old problem for both consumers and manufacturers - a certain product becomes embroiled in rumours and scientific speculations of its potentially damaging side effects, but the absence of definitive studies and problems with long-term time-scales make it impossible to establish whether it is in fact a product liability risk.
Last year it was the possible cancer risk of underarm deodorants - namely, their high aluminium content and the cancer risk this allegedly posed.
Although no link could be established for certain, tests did show that among women who used aluminium-containing deodorants, there appeared to be a higher than normal content of aluminium in the breast, something which is considered to indicate a strong breast cancer risk.
The scientist who oversaw the study into this link commented at the time, "We found there was a wide variation in concentrations of aluminium. Some patients had low concentrations while others had quite high concentrations.
"What we found among all the women is that they all had higher concentrations in the breast tissue closest to the underarm compared to more central tissue, for example below the nipple.
"We don't know that aluminium originated from antiperspirant but one can put two and two together and make a guess on that. The next work will be to see if the aluminium is coming from antiperspirant or elsewhere. We are going to do what we can to follow up this study with future research. Funding is the main barrier to that.
"Aluminium is known to cause cancer in animal models. We need to make sure aluminium in antiperspirants isn't contributing to breast cancer."
"There are some non-aluminium- based antiperspirants but they don't work as well. Myth and legend tells us aluminium is safe but reality shows us not that it isn't safe but that we don't know. Not knowing is not a reason for assuming safety."
Ah, but therein lies the rub. "Not knowing is not a reason for assuming safety," is a very troubling statement for both consumers and manufacturers. Much as with what many people perceive to be the conundrum at the heart of the question of global warming, should a cautious approach be taken, thereby potentially saving lives, or should caution be thrown to the wind in the absence of any overwhelming evidence? Unfortunately, where ambiguity reigns, so too, usually, does confusion.
Product liability law is not completely clear on this point either. Although it can be said that where a real and potential risk has been perceived by either the general scientific community or manufacturers themselves, a duty of care exists towards consumers, whereby a precautionary principle should prioritise long-term risk over short-term commercial benefits.
And in a year where some leading scientists have warned that, against uncertainty regarding their link to brain cancers, mobile telephone use should be kept to an absolute minimum, and excluded altogether for children, we now also have uncertainty about the skin cancer risk posed by moisturisers.
This comes after a study by US scientists showing that many may increase the carcinogenic effects of UV rays. Although the study used mice, which have very different skin properties to humans, it did find that certain moisturisers increase the tumour risk by 69%.
However, Cancer Research UK remain circumspect about the link, commenting, "This is a small study using mice - whose skin is quite different from humans - that had been heavily exposed to UV radiation. The key message is to avoid excessive exposure to UV radiation from the sun, as this is ultimately the cause of most skin cancers."
Fair enough, but for those who, like me, are of a cautious disposition, spurning cigarettes, excessive alcohol and fast cars, the product liability risk, however tenuous, is discouraging enough. After all, I work for a no win, no fee solicitors firm and it does not naturally follow that I one day intend to use their services.
