Pages

Showing posts with label Breast Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Breast Health. Show all posts

Thursday, 14 July 2022

The surprising science of breast milk - BBC

Scientists are discovering the extraordinary power of human milk and the benefits it brings to infants, but there are also some hidden contaminants that can lurk in breast and formula milks.

By Anna Turns23rd June 2022


(Image credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Throughout the first year of their lives, I breastfed my two children without the use of infant formula. Breast milk has been shown to be an ideal source of nutrition for babies, with many benefits for their developing brains, immune systems and digestive tracts, and I was glad to be able to offer them that boost. But when I had my blood tested for persistent toxic chemicals while researching a book on pollution, I discovered that some pesticides banned more than 40 years ago could still be detected in my body. There is also evidence that low levels of some chemical contaminants can be passed from a mother into her breast milk. Yet formula milk is also prone to contamination with toxic chemicals or potentially harmful bacteria, which have led to high-profile food scares and recalls in recent years.

It made me wonder what's really in the first foods our children consume – from the most beneficial ingredients, to hidden, undesirable or even toxic ones. And given what we know about some of the dangers, what can be done to improve all the available options for babies, be they breast- or formula-fed, and offer them the best possible start in life?

The milk that changes every day

Breast milk is considered the top choice for a baby's first food (the World Health Organization recommends that infants should be exclusively breastfed for the first six month of life). It mainly consists of water, fat, protein, as well as vitamins, minerals, digestive enzymes and hormones. It is rich in maternal antibodies, and has anti-infective properties. Breast milk is also a dynamic, adaptable food – it is fattier in the afternoon and evening than in the morning, for example. It also varies during a feed. When the baby latches onto the breast, the first gush of milk, or foremilk, is thin and high in lactose, making it thirst-quenching and easy to drink. The so-called hindmilk that follows is creamier and fattier, making it more filling. This dynamic aspect is one reason why breast milk is hard to replicate, despite considerable advances in the quality of infant formula.

"Human milk varies over the course of lactation, over the course of a day, from the start to the end of the feed, and to some extent on maternal factors such as her diet," says Mary Fewtrell, a professor of paediatric nutrition at University College London, who published a peer-reviewed study of lactation. "That all makes it difficult to decide on a precise amount that should be included in a formula whose composition doesn't change with the baby's age."

Fewtrell highlights non-nutrient ingredients in breast milk such as hormones, cells (including stem cells), microRNAs (small strands of genetic material), which give it unique properties. "We still don't fully understand the role of all these components but… quite probably they allow the mother to transmit information to the infant about her own experiences and the environment, which is why breastfeeding is sometimes described as 'personalised nutrition'."


A Yanomami mother breastfeeds her baby as she waits at a health care centre in Brazil (Credit: Andressa Anholete / Getty Images)

However, while more than 80% of babies in the US are breastfed at the start of their life, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that rate falls to 58% at six months. Health authorities have tried to increase that rate, for example by offering more breastfeeding support to mothers. Diagnosing and treating conditions such as tongue-tie in babies can also help. But in the meantime, parents who do use formula may also wish to understand more about it, including what might be done to improve it.

"Whilst human milk is the biological norm for human infants and provides benefits for both mother and infant, some women may be unable to breast-feed or choose not to do so, and some choose to partly breast-feed," says Fewtrell. "For young infants, the only safe alternative if an infant is not breast-fed (or not fully breast-fed) is an infant formula which is designed to meet the nutritional needs of infants and support normal growth and development." Flexibility is expected – there's no "one size fits all" approach to infant nutrition, she says.

Towards better formula

The manufacture of infant formula has come a long way over recent decades. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, bottle-feeding was not a safe option. In orphanages during the early 1900s, as many as 80% of bottle-fed babies died during the first year of life due to infections from unsterilised bottles, or malnourishment. Since infant formula was first commercially produced in 1865 using just four key ingredients (cows' milk, wheat and malt flour, and potassium bicarbonate), its nutritional contents have been refined in remarkable ways.

So what's in formula today?

Multiple fat sources are often used in formula, including cows' or goats' milk (often skimmed, which isn't as fatty as breast milk) and vegetable oils such as palm, sunflower or rapeseed, plus fatty acids. One fatty acid called DHA (docosahexaenoic acid, a type of omega-3 fat), which plays an important role in infant development, is now a mandatory ingredient in the European Union.

In breast milk, the main carbohydrate is lactose. In formula, this is usually added into the skimmed dairy milk powder base. Maltodextrin (a carbohydtrate derived from maize or potatoes) is also added. In the UK, glucose (a sugar) isn't routinely added but in the US, glucose sugars such as corn syrup are more commonly used. One problem is that this can increase the risk of dental decay in infants when their teeth come through.

The major breast milk proteins are whey and casein, which change in proportion as the baby grows, plus lactoferrin which is found at higher concentrations in colostrum, the first milk a mother produces after birth. The protein quantity and composition differs in formulas based on cows' and goats' milk, which have a higher casein to whey ratio than human milk. Plant-based ones are often made with soya protein. Formula also contains a mix of vitamins (including A, D, B and K), minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc and many other trace elements.

Breast milk is a dynamic, adaptable food, and varies over the course of a day and even from the start to the end of a feed (Credit: Getty Images)

Unfortunately, formula can also contain lurking, unwelcome ingredients: just like I discovered pollutants in my own body, toxic substances can make their way into infant formula, too. 

Heavy metal mix

In 2017, the Clean Label Project, a US-based not-for-profit that tests products for toxic substances such as pesticides and heavy metals, found that almost 80% of 86 infant formula samples tested positive for arsenic. It also discovered that soy-based formulas had seven times more cadmium, a carcinogenic metal found in batteries, than other formulas.

Two years later, researchers from the Clean Label Project and the department of neurology at the University of Miami published a study into the heavy metal content of 91 infant formulas. They found that 22% of infant formula samples tested exceeded the lead exposure limit set by Californian state law, while 23% exceeded the state's limit for cadmium. The study concluded that "low-level heavy metal contamination is widespread" in baby foods and formulas and that "further research is needed to understand the long-term health effects of this chronic daily low-level heavy metal exposure in babies". Another study of baby foods in Sweden found that the dietary cadmium exposure of children fed infant formula was up to 12 times higher than those who are breast fed, although the levels were still within weekly tolerable limits set by the WHO and FAO.

Food safety regulators insist they are actively trying to tackle the issue of heavy metals in baby foods

Jackie Bowen, an environmental biologist and executive director of Clean Label Project, co-authored the study. She campaigns for greater transparency about the hidden contaminants that end up in our food, including infant formula. According to Bowen, food safety regulation can miss those contaminants since it focuses primarily on microbial pathogens such as E. coli that cause acute, short-term food poisoning.

Food safety regulators, however, insist they are actively trying to tackle the issue of heavy metals in baby foods. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, insists it routinely monitors baby foods for toxic elements and takes action if they present a health concern. It says it is working with food companies and other stakeholders in an attempt to reduce the levels of heavy metals and other toxic substances in baby foods to as low as possible. But a recent report by the Committee on Oversight and Reform at the US House of Representatives criticised the FDA and food companies for not doing enough.

The FDA, however, says it is continuing to issue guidance to industry that will help lead to "meaningful and lasting reductions in exposure to toxic elements from foods", alongside its sampling and enforcement work.

"As parents and caregivers ourselves, we recognise and understand concerns about toxic elements and how they could impact the health of children," a spokesperson told the BBC.

"Consumers are increasingly concerned about how the foods they eat are linked to long-term chronic diseases like cancer or infertility that can take decades to manifest," explains Bowen who adds that, in the US, this food safety regulation is 'silent' when it comes to heavy metal contamination. "There's a growing divide between the court of law and the court of public opinion of what it means for food to be safe.".

Heavy metals like cadmium and lead naturally occur in the Earth's crust, so it's impossible to totally eliminate them. But human activities such as mining, fracking, industrial agriculture and the use of waste water for irrigation, exacerbate the presence of heavy metals in air, water and soil in the form of pollution, Bowen argues. Unlike microbial pathogens which can be destroyed by high heat and other methods, there's no way to get rid of such contaminants once they are in a product, she says. Instead, the problem has to be addressed at the start of the process, by beginning with clean, uncontaminated soil. After all, formula starts with farming, since key ingredients come from dairy livestock or crops.

"If you want a high-quality finished product, that comes from high-quality ingredients. That comes from healthy nutritious soils and that comes from good environmental policy that isn't going to allow for that level of pollution that contributed to the problem," says Bowen who explains that certain formula ingredients are at higher risk of heavy metal contamination. Soy, a mainstream plant-based substitute for cows' milk, tends to bioaccumulate heavy metals, as does hemp, whereas pea protein doesn't have that same tendency.

A dad bottle-feeds his son in a pre-school class in Beijing (Credit: Gou Yige/AFP via Getty Images)

Hidden formula contaminants are only one part of the problem. Powdered formula gets mixed with tap water to create infant milk. That poses a health risk in areas where that water is contaminated by old, flaking lead pipes, which happened in Flint, Michigan, for example (lead exposure can also affect breastfeeding mothers). While lead piping is gradually being replaced, water testing typically focuses on microbes, rather than high levels of heavy metals, Bowen says.

"It's one thing to solve the problem for infant formula, but unless you solve heavy metal contamination of the drinking water that gets mixed with powdered milk to give to baby, you're only fixing half the problem," she says. "What are we doing to prevent these problems in the first place?"

The US Food and Drug Administration's Closer to Zero action plan, which aims to reduce exposure to arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury from foods eaten by babies and young children, could be one step towards cleaner food.

Common formula ingredients such as palm and soy have also raised wider environmental concerns, because their production often involves destruction of native forest habitat. For some, the solution is to use organic formula ingredients and source them as locally as possible. In Australia, for example, formula maker Bubs sources milk from local goat farms and cattle, which they say helps them ensure the traceability of the ingredients they use.

Feeding the microbiome

In recent years, there has been growing awareness of the important role of the human microbiome, the ecosystem of microorganisms that thrive inside and on our bodies, including in our digestive system. Emily Bloxam, a paediatric dietitian at City Dietitians in London who specialises in neonatal nutrition and allergies, explains that while the nutritional composition of formula is now closer to breast milk than ever before, breast milk is "a key driver" for the development of the baby's gut microbiome. Breast milk components that facilitate this development, such as maternal antibodies and healthy gut bacteria, cannot be artificially manufactured yet. 

"Bifidobacteria is a key probiotic (friendly bacteria) found in breastmilk which colonises an infant's gut during the first 1,000 days of life and aids immune function, while reducing the risk of asthma, eczema and gastrointestinal symptoms," says Bloxam. "Breast milk also contains prebiotics called human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs) which feed the Bifidobacteria allowing their growth."

A mother breastfeeds her child during the "all for breastfeeding" festival in Bogota, Colombia (Credit: Daniel Garzon Herazo/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Over 150 types of HMOs have been found in breast milk. In fact, the gut microbiomes of breastfed infants have been found to be distinctly different to those of formula-fed babies.

Some hypoallergenic formulas now include prebiotic and probiotic additions which are designed to bring the gut microbiome of milk-allergic infants closer to that of breastfed infants. Newly developed probiotic Bifidobacteria supplements can be mixed with formula or breast milk for babies who have been delivered by C-section and therefore not exposed to some of their mother's gut bacteria during a vaginal delivery. Some HMOs have been chemically engineered for addition to infant formula as well.

However, any added ingredients in formula still lack one distinctive feature of breast milk: the ability to constantly change and adapt. As Bloxam explains, breast milk is in a complex constant state of flux: "The amounts and composition of these beneficial substances vary among women according to a number of factors such as genetics, geographical regions, stages of lactation and diet. Even within one individual, breast milk composition changes daily to meet the infant's needs."

Lab-grown milk?

One way to potentially mimic some of those properties may be to grow breast-milk-producing cells in a laboratory, something scientists are beginning to explore.

BioMilq, a North Carolina-based start-up, was set up by cell biologist Leila Strickland after she struggled to produce enough breast milk for her first child. Her team take cells from human breast tissue and breast milk before growing them in flasks in the lab. They are fed a mix of nutrients and vitamins, then incubated inside a bioreactor, where the cells start secreting the milk components that are found in natural human milk. However, BioMilq is still a few years at least away from market. Also, lab-grown milk would still not be as individually tailored to a baby's fluctuating needs as their own mother's milk.

Other biotech companies are also working on lab-grown milk projects that could change how we think of manufactured infant formula in the future. In Singapore, Turtle Tree Labs is culturing cells from various different mammals, including cows, sheep, goats, camels and now humans, to create milk components. In New York, researchers at Helaina, a start-up, are using fermentation processes that programme yeast cells to manufacture functional human milk proteins, which could eventually be added to infant formula and other food products.

We can quite successfully produce formulas to provide adequate and safe nutrition so the baby grows and develops as expected. However I think it would be impossible to ever mimic the 'non-nutrient' components – Mary Fewtrell

However, breast milk is a constantly changing fluid so in a way it's a moving target, with some components still not fully understood, says Fewtrell, the professor of paediatric nutrition at University College London.   

"We can quite successfully produce formulas to provide adequate and safe nutrition so the baby grows and develops as expected," she says. "Indeed, there have been improvements to the composition of formulas in recent years so that they can more closely reproduce the growth patterns and some outcomes seen in breast-fed infants. However I think it would be impossible to ever mimic the 'non-nutrient' components in this complex fluid."

As for my investigation into my own body's toxic load, and the harmful chemicals that were perhaps present in my breastmilk, Bloxam, the dietician, reassures me:  "I'd encourage breastfeeding wherever possible as the benefits for mother and baby would far outweigh any risks [from contamination]." 

Still it appears I'm not the only one wondering about the ingredients in my own milk. Stephanie Canale, previously a family medical doctor, is the founder of Lactation Lab in California, a private company that analyses breast milk for nutritional content as well as environmental toxics. Mothers send in frozen samples of their breast milk to check the levels of various ingredients including minerals and vitamins. The idea is that they can then adapt their diet accordingly.

Canale says that when we look at a baby's nutrition, we need to include everything from prenatal vitamins to the food a breastfeeding mother consumes and the meals a weaning baby eats. Formula may be one part of that mosaic, in families where it is used. 

"It's this holistic approach," says Canale who would like to see stricter regulations in the US about the contents of formula. "I'm from Canada and it still surprises how much high-fructose corn syrup is present in US products, including formula. Moms are going to drive this change by saying we need to be better aware of what is going into these products, especially formula because that child is eating the same thing every single day – there's no variation [like there is naturally with breast milk]."

In the case of the toxic chemicals – whether they find their way into breast milk or into formula – the question is clearly not just about how we can provide our children with safe nutrition. It is also about how we can provide them and future generations with a safe, liveable environment, and reduce pollution along the entire food chain. One answer, surely, is to start by using fewer harmful chemicals in the first place.

* Listen to My Toxic Cocktail, Anna Turns's investigation for BBC Radio 4's Costing the Earth series on BBC Sounds. Go Toxic Free: Easy and Sustainable Ways to Reduce Chemical Pollution by Anna Turns is out now

--

This article was updated on 27 June to include a quote from the FDA.

FAMILY TREE

This article is part of Family Tree, a series of features that explore the issues and opportunities that families face all over the world. You might also be interested in other stories about a baby's first months:

You can also climb new branches of the Family Tree on BBC Worklife.


https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220622-whats-really-inside-babies-first-foods

Tuesday, 22 October 2019

Breast cancer detected by thermal imaging scan in Edinburgh

A tourist has told of her "life-changing" visit to the Camera Obscura in Edinburgh after one of its thermal cameras detected she had breast cancer.
Thermal imaging scanImage copyrightBAL GILL
Image captionThe thermal imaging camera showed that Ms Gill's breast was a different colour
A tourist has told of her "life-changing" visit to the Camera Obscura in Edinburgh after one of its thermal cameras detected she had breast cancer.
Bal Gill, 41, from Slough in Berkshire, was at the Camera Obscura and World of Illusions at the top of the Royal Mile with her family in May.
When she went into the museum's thermal imaging camera room she noticed her left breast was a different colour.
When she returned home she saw a doctor who confirmed she had breast cancer.
She discovered that thermal imaging cameras can be used as a tool by oncologists.

Early stage breast cancer

Thermography, also called thermal imaging, uses a special camera to measure the temperature of the skin on the breast's surface.
It is a non-invasive test that does not involve any harmful radiation.
Cancer cells grow and multiply very fast. Blood flow and metabolism are higher in a cancer tumour as blood flow and metabolism increase, which makes skin temperature rise.
Camera ObscuraImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionThe thermal camera was installed at Camera Obscura in 2009 and is a popular attraction
Ms Gill, a deputy-director of finance for a university, said: "We had been to Edinburgh Castle and on the way down we saw the museum.
"While making our way through the floors we got to the thermal imaging camera room. As all families do, we entered and started to wave our arms and look at the images created.
"While doing this I noticed a heat patch coming from my left breast. We thought it was odd and having looked at everyone else they didn't have the same. I took a picture and we carried on and enjoyed the rest of the museum."

'Life-changing visit'

A few days later when the mother-of-two returned home she was flicking through her photographs and saw the image.
On Google she found a number of articles about breast cancer and thermal imaging cameras. She was later diagnosed with early stage breast cancer.
She has since had two surgeries, including a mastectomy, and has a final surgery in November. She has been told she will not need chemotherapy or radiotherapy afterwards.
"I just wanted to say thank you, without that camera I would never have known," she said. "I know it's not the intention of the camera but for me it really was a life-changing visit.
"I cannot tell you enough about how my visit to the Camera Obscura changed my life."
The Thermal Camera, which was installed in 2009, is a popular part of the top Edinburgh attraction, and lets visitors see a visual of all their body hot spots.

'Really moved'

Andrew Johnson, general manager of Camera Obscura and World of Illusions said: "We did not realise that our thermal camera had the potential to detect life-changing symptoms in this way.
"We were really moved when Bal contacted us to share her story as breast cancer is very close to home for me and a number of our team.
"It's amazing that Bal noticed the difference in the image and crucially acted on it promptly. We wish her all the best with her recovery and hope to meet her and her family in the future."
Dr Tracey Gillies, NHS Lothian medical director, said: "In the past thermal imaging cameras have been experimented with to detect cancer, however, this has never been a proven screening tool.
"Early diagnosis of breast cancer improves the ability to treat the cancer and the chance of survival is higher. We encourage any woman that has received an invite to a screening to attend and anyone with concerns who does not qualify for the screening programme to visit their GP."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-50139540

Friday, 27 September 2019

Bras Cause More than Breast Cancer: Preliminary Results of the International Bra-Free Study

If you are a woman, then there is important information you need to know to keep healthy and avoid disease. This is information that you should be told by your doctor and other health professionals, but many of these professionals simply don’t have this information.


Published
 
on
 

IN BRIEF

  • The Facts:
    Written by Sydney Ross Singer, a pioneer of the field of Applied Medical Anthropology, author, & Director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease. Originally published at Greenmedinfo.com, it is shared here with permission.
  • Reflect On:
    Is it time to ditch the bra?
The issue pertains to the wearing of tight clothing. Studies, and common sense, tell us that wearing anything tight is bad for health. Tight clothing compresses our soft body tissues, impairing the function of blood vessels, lymphatic vessels, nerves, and more. Research shows tight neckties, tight pants, girdles, corsets, bras, and other compression garments can cause serious harm.
The purpose of the International Bra-Free Study is to assess the changes a woman experiences once she stops using bras. The study began in 2018 and is still recruiting participants from around the world. Participants pledge to stop using bras and their progress is followed through open and closed-ended questions. The study is ongoing, but we have seen some amazing patterns in the experience of women who stop wearing bras. We believe it is extremely important to share these preliminary findings with the public at this time, hoping to warn as many women as possible about the effect of bra usage on health.
We started our study considering the effect of bras on breasts, and expected improvement in breast pain, cysts, and reduced cancer incidence in our group of bra-free women. What we discovered was that, in addition to the above, we also found that women recovered from many other bodily ailments that seemed completely unrelated to bra usage.
We are discovering the many ways tight bras harm health, including every part of the body. As you will see, bras cause more than breast disease.
Background
Much of fashion is about altering the body to achieve a culturally-defined shape. When tight garments cause disease, the fashion industry opposes the research revealing the disease, and the medical industry gets caught in the middle. Medicine is a business that profits from the detection and treatment of disease, and makes money when people are sick, not well. This conflict of interest helps perpetuate harmful cultural practices, such as wearing tight clothing, since medicine, and the culture in general, are influenced more by industry and money than by health.
Bras have been shown in numerous studies to contribute to breast cancer incidence. While the link between breast cancer and bras has been recognized by doctors since bras became popular, in the early 20th Century, cultural acceptance1 of the bra and extensive promotion by the fashion and lingerie industries have eclipsed information that bras pose a significant threat to health.
When cultural influences from industry and social practices bias human behavior and cause disease, the resulting disease can be called “culturogenic”. Breast cancer is mostly a culturogenic disease, with a small (less than 10%) genetic component, and a large cultural-environmental component. These non-genetic causes of breast cancer include exposure to environmental carcinogens and x-rays(including mammograms), along with direct inhibition of the breast lymphatic system by tight bra usage.
How Bras Cause Breast Cancer
Impaired lymphatics is central to the etiology of breast cancer. The lymphatic system is part of the immune system, and is responsible for the circulation of interstitial fluid. This fluid develops from the bloodstream, delivering nutrition and oxygen to the cells, along with toxins that are in the bloodstream as a result of contaminants in our air, water, and food. The lymphatic system consists of microscopic vessels with one-way valves that lead to lymph nodes. Lymph fluid passively passes into lymphatic vessels to be eliminated from the tissue, inspected by the lymph nodes, and returned to the bloodstream.
Waste products from cellular metabolism, along with toxins delivered to the cells from our petrochemically-polluted air, food, and water, are removed from the tissues by the lymphatic system. In addition, pathogens and cancer cells are also swept through the lymphatic, to the lymph nodes, where an immune response is elicited.
However, when the tiny, easily-compressed lymphatic vessels are constricted by tight bras, this fluid channel becomes restricted, causing a variety of problems. Most women who wear bras experience breast pain and cysts as a result of this lymphatic impairment. In addition, the resulting lymph-stasis and lymph congestion of the tissue results in reduced toxin elimination, causing the progressive toxification of the breasts. The local tissue environment becomes low in oxygen, reducing the body’s ability to process free radicals. The resulting accumulation of endogenous and exogenous toxins increases cancer risk significantly.
According to our 1991-93 US Bra and Breast Cancer Study, published in our book, Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, the bra-cancer link is the major cause of breast cancer. This study concluded that bra-free women have about the same risk of breast cancer as men, while the tighter and longer the bra is worn the higher the risk rises, to 125 times higher for a 24/7 bra user compared to a bra-free woman.
This was the world’s first study that looked directly at the bra-cancer link. A 1991 study from Harvard found pre-menopausal bra-free women had half the risk of breast cancer compared to bra users, but this finding was incidental to the main focus of the study, which was on breast size, handedness, and breast cancer incidence.
Since the release of Dressed to Kill in 1995, there have been dozens of other bra-cancer studies performed internationally that show a significant link. However, this issue is considered “controversial” due to its potential cultural and economic impact, similar to resistance to the tobacco-cancer link back in the mid-20th Century. Current opponents of the bra-cancer link include thought leaders such as the American Cancer Society2 and Susan G. Komen Foundation3, which have publicly called the link scientifically implausible.
Figures Don’t Lie, but Liars Figure
Critics of the bra-cancer link refer to a 2014 study that was commissioned by the National Cancer Institute, which has been denying any possibility of a bra-cancer link since the release of Dressed to Kill. Due to public acceptance of the link, NCI felt it necessary to counter the studies showing a link by funding a study to oppose the link. This study was done at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, which raises money for breast cancer research through promoting “Bra Dash” events4. The study was done on post-menopausal women only, and none of the women were bra-free, so there was no control group. The author of the study, who is a female graduate student who also wore bras, unsurprisingly found no bra-cancer link in her selected group of bra users.
This single, un-reproduced, flawed study has been used by the ACS and Komen Foundation, and others who follow them, as final proof of no bra-cancer link. While conflicting studies are typical of scientific research, this one study has been considered the first and last word on this issue by the cancer “experts” who deny the bra-cancer link. This study clearly serves the interests of the cancer detection and treatment industry, as well as the lingerie industry which fears class action lawsuits for the harms caused by bras.
Nevertheless, since that attempt to stop interest in the bra-cancer link in 2014, there have been many newer studies that show the link. And a recent trend5 in breast cancer research is asking about bra usage as a standard question, just like asking about family history. In fact, a recent study from Iran shows bra usage is a bigger factor in causing breast cancer than family history.6
Culturally, bra usage has been questioned as a result of the #MeToo movement that has been challenging sexism and abuse in the workplace. Many women are now opting for being comfortable and bra-free at work, as well as in their everyday lives. Girls in high school are objecting to dress codes that require bras. And the general legal consensus is that women at work cannot be forced to wear sexualizing clothing, including high heels, short skirts, and bras.7 These trends are making it easier for the culture to accept the fact that bras are causing disease.
Perhaps the biggest impediment to this potentially lifesaving information is the resistance from the medical field, such as the ACS and others who follow their lead. We discuss in the 2018, updated, second edition of Dressed to Kill why we believe there is this resistance to this information, instead of a call for further research. Regardless of the reason, this unscientific, biased opposition to the bra-cancer link is a public health threat.
It is to combat this threat to health that we began the International Bra-Free Study in 2018. This study, which is free to join, is designed to create a cohort of bra-free women in order to see what happens to their breast health over time. While the study accepts women who have been bra-free for years, most of our participants have been bra users, allowing us to see what changes happen to their breasts and overall health once they stop using bras.
While this study is expected to help women avoid breast cancer and other breast disease associated with bra usage, the women in our study could also be available for other breast studies which require bra-free women. One big flaw in breast cancer and other breast disease research is that bra usage has been ignored as a factor. This is as scientifically flawed as ignoring smoking when doing lung disease research, which was the case prior to the acceptance of the tobacco-cancer link.
The 2014 Hutchinson study did not include any bra-free women as a control group, which that study admits is a flaw. They rationalize that flaw by saying that it was nearly impossible to find bra-free women for their study. Of course, you cannot do a valid breast cancer study looking at the bra-cancer link without including a control group of bra-free women for comparison. So instead of conducting poor breast cancer research without control groups, we hope to offer our study participants for possible inclusion in their future studies.
The response from the medical industry was swift after we announced our International Bra-Free Study. The American Council on Science and Health, a public relations firm that aims to dismiss and discredit all those who challenge the interests of the drug industry, published a hit piece against me and the study. Ironically, they claimed8 the study is flawed by not including a control group of bra users.
Nevertheless, despite the resistance by the medical industry over the years, many women have heard about the bra-cancer link and have stopped wearing bras. Many have joined the International Bra-Free Study. We expect that this group of women will have a lower incidence of breast cancer than the general public, which is our control group.
However, we have discovered something unexpected in the study. There have been some definite health changes following the elimination of bra usage, and while the study is ongoing, we felt it important to report these surprising findings.
Bras Constrict More Than the Lymphatics
First, we must explain that tight bras compress more than just the lymphatics. They also compress nerves and muscles. In fact, research has shown that wearing tight bras impairs the autonomic nervous system, leading to a host of problems.
For example, researchers have found that tight bras essentially create a full-body stress response. According to one study9, “The main results can be summarized as follows: (1) urinary excretion of adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol was facilitated, and the amounts of urinary excretion were significantly higher when TC (tight clothing) were worn. Heart rate was significantly higher in the TC group; (2) nocturnal urinary melatonin excretion was significantly greater in the TC group. These results are discussed in terms of an enhancement of diurnal sympathetic nervous system activity caused by pressure on the skin produced by tight clothing.”
Another study of tight bras found that constipation is a result10, presumably due to suppression of the parasympathetic nervous system and intestinal mobility.
Another study11 found that women who were bra-free had shorter menstrual cycles, averaging 30 days, compared to bra users, whose menstrual cycle averaged 45 days.
A study also found that tight clothing hampers breathing12, reducing lung expansion, inhalation volume, and deep breathing.
Research has also shown that breasts lift and tone once the bra is no longer worn.13 The study author concluded, “Medically, physiologically, anatomically – breasts gain no benefit from being denied gravity. On the contrary, they get saggier with a bra.” While this scientific finding stands in contrast to bra-industry propaganda claiming that bras prevent droop, the science behind the bra-causes-droop effect is that reliance on the bra results in weakened suspensory ligaments and more droop. Once the bra is no longer worn, the ligaments strengthen and the breasts lift and tone. In addition. bras make the breasts heavy with excess fluid due to lymphatic impairment, resulting in more pendulous breasts.
Surprising Results of the International Bra-Free Study
I must admit that before we started the International Bra-Free Study in 2018, we thought we already knew what to expect when women stopped wearing bras. Since we first announced the results of our research in 1995, women have stopped wearing bras and have reported to us that their breast pain and cysts disappeared. In fact, this surprising recovery was rapid, within a month of no longer wearing bras. Many times, women felt a big improvement in pain and cysts within days of ending the bra-caused constriction of their breasts. Indeed, this tangible self-demonstration of the harm caused by bras has kept this issue alive despite denials of any ill effects from bras by the cancer industry.
But we had no idea how many other problems would improve by not wearing bras, until we started the International Bra-Free Study. While the study is ongoing, we feel that it is imperative that women learn how bras can interfere with their health, to take proper precautionary measures.
From the hundreds of women who are part of this study, with more joining daily, it has become clear that bras cause more than breast disease.
Everyone has reported reduction of breast pain and cysts, if they had them before starting the study. In no case has breast pain or cysts worsened.
Most report that their breasts are less saggy, and are rounder. Some report that their nipples now have more feeling than when they wore bras.
Every woman reports that she breathes easier without a bra.
Most women report that their digestion has improved.
Women who had shoulder pain with a bra report loss of that pain once being bra-free.
Many women report loss of headaches since being bra-free.
Most women report having more confidence in public without a bra, and a greater sense of confidence and empowerment.
Women in the study report they have no problem being bra-free at work, and appreciate the comfort.
Most women report that they like their breasts more since being bra-free.
Most report friends and family supporting their decision to be bra-free.
Surprisingly, being bra-free does not seem to alter these women’s sex lives.
Some women reported that their menstrual cycles became shorter and normalized after being bra-free.
Importantly, not one participant has experienced any negative effects of being bra-free.
We also found that once women freed themselves from bras, they began to free themselves from other oppressive aspects of their lives. As one participant explained, “I am more confident, I like my breasts now, and I want to advocate for girls and women to understand the link between bras and cancer and how easy, rewarding and healthful it can be to feel this comfortable. I am more empowered now, too.”
To Be Continued…
It should be clear that when you use a garment that compresses and constricts the lymphatic system and the autonomic nervous system, you are potentially altering the physiology of the breasts and of the entire body. Breast cancer may be the end disease for the breasts, but there will also be other disease conditions caused by tight bras, and other tight clothing, that can lead to nervous, hormonal, and circulatory problems.
When we first researched the bra-cancer link, we were surprised at how little research there was on the subject. Many people assume there can’t be a bra-cancer link, or they would have heard about it. People assume that the American Cancer Society would be warning women about bras if there was research that linked bra usage to cancer, just like the ACS finally got to warning people about smoking (after taking decades to finally accept the link.) But we are not just dealing with smoking. When we talk about bras, we are talking about breasts. And in our breast-obsessed culture, breasts are sexualized, objectified, molded, squeezed, sucked, compressed, constricted, pushed-up, tattooed, pierced, implanted, cut off, and framed in a lacy bra. It’s a cultural package that interferes with science and common sense. And even as doctors smoked cigarettes in the 1950s and promoted their use, doctors today wear bras and promote their use, oblivious to the obvious.
We are all victims of a bra-using culture. As a result, there is an epidemic of breast pain and cysts than affects more than half of women who use bras. Most of this is caused by the bra and improves rapidly once bra usage ends.
Some women will develop breast cancer as a result of a bra-constricted lymphatic system and exposure to cancer-causing chemicals, which consequently become concentrated in their breasts.
Radiation damage and other harmful impacts, such as trauma, to the breasts cannot be as effectively repaired when the lymphatics are constricted by bras. And the immune system cannot as effectively fight developing cancer cells without good lymphatic circulation.
Through the International Bra-Free Study, we have also seen confirmation of other research into the effects of tight clothing, including bras, on various bodily functions, due to impacts on the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. This means that women are suffering from constipation, shallow breathing, increased stress, menstrual abnormalities, and other possible problems because of their bras.
How tight is tight? If it leaves a mark in the skin, then it is too tight.
While the impact of bras on the autonomic nervous system has been known for decades, it has been largely ignored, along with research showing the other health hazards of bras. When a carcinogen is part of the fabric of the culture, it takes ripping the culture apart to remove it.
Denial is a much easier and profitable strategy for the industries that sell bras, and sell disease detection and treatment services.
We encourage women everywhere to join the International Bra-Free Study and see for themselves, on themselves, how chronic health problems that plagued them for years could be related to the cultural practice of wearing tight bras and other tight clothing. You have nothing to lose but your discomfort and chronic health problems, and this almost certainly will help you prevent breast cancer.
Join the International Bra-Free Study at https://brafreestudy.com.
SOME STUDIES THAT SUPPORT THE BRA-CANCER LINK14
• 1991 Harvard study (CC Hsieh, D Trichopoulos (1991). Breast size, handedness and breast cancer risk. European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology 27(2):131-135.). This study found that, “Premenopausal women who do not wear bras had half the risk of breast cancer compared with bra users…”
• 1991-93 U.S. Bra and Breast Cancer Study by Singer and Grismaijer, published in Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras (Second Edition, Square One Publishers, 2018). Found that bra-free women have about the same incidence of breast cancer as men. 24/7 bra wearing increases incidence over 100 times that of a brafree woman.
• Singer and Grismaijer did a follow-up study in Fiji, published in Get It Off! (ISCD Press, 2000). Found 24 case histories of breast cancer in a culture where half the women are bra-free. The women getting breast cancer were all wearing bras. Given women with the same genetics and diet and living in the same village, the ones getting breast disease were the ones wearing bras for work.
• A 2009 Chinese study (Zhang AQ, Xia JH, Wang Q, Li WP, Xu J, Chen ZY, Yang JM (2009). [Risk factors of breast cancer in women in Guangdong and the countermeasures]. In Chinese. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2009 Jul;29(7):1451-3.) found that NOT sleeping in a bra was protective against breast cancer, lowering the risk 60%.
• 2011 a study was published, in Spanish, confirming that bras are causing breast disease and cancer. It found that underwired and push-up bras are the most harmful, but any bra that leaves red marks or indentations may cause disease.
• 2015 Comparative study of breast cancer risk factors at Kenyatta National Hospital and the Nairobi Hospital J. Afr. Cancer (2015) 7:41-46. This study found a significant bracancer link in pre-and post-menopausal women.
• 2016 Wearing a Tight Bra for Many Hours a Day is Associated with Increased Risk of Breast Cancer Adv Oncol Res Treat 1: 105. This is the first epidemiological study to look at bra tightness and time worn, and found a significant bra-cancer link.
• 2016 Brassiere wearing and breast cancer risk: A systematic review and metaanalysis World J Meta-Anal. Aug 26, 2015; 3(4): 193-205 This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between 8 areas of brassiere-wearing practices and the risk of breast cancer. Twelve case-control studies met inclusion criteria for review. The meta-analysis shows statistically significant findings to support the association between brassiere wearing during sleep and breast cancer risk.
• 2018 Lymph stasis promotes tumor growth Journal of Dermatological Science “(t)hese findings come as no surprise to us who for a long time have been aware that alterations in regional lymphatic flow may produce dysregulation in skin immune function and consequent oncogenesis. In fact, since 2002, our team has held the view that lymphedematous areas are immunologically vulnerable sites for the development of neoplasms as well as infections and immune-mediated diseases. In recent years, increasing evidence has confirmed this assumption.”

References
1 For example, Dr. John Mayo, one of the founders of the Mayo Clinic, wrote in the article “Susceptibility to Cancer” in the 1931 Annals of Surgery, that “Cancer of the breast occurs largely among civilized women. In those countries where breasts are allowed to be exposed, that is, are not compressed or irritated by clothing, it is rare.” A bra patent in 1950 stated, “Even in the proper breast size, most brassieres envelop or bind the breast in such a fashion that normal circulation and freedom of movement is constricted. Many cases of breast cancer have been attributed to such breast constriction as caused by improperly fitted brassieres.” (Taken from the 2018 edition of Dressed to Kill.)
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/09/22/bras-cause-more-than-breast-cancer-preliminary-results-of-the-international-bra-free-study/