Evidence Shows Most Mouthwashes Substantially Raise Cancer Risk

An article in the Scotsman newspaper reported that alcohol-based mouthwashes increase your chance of suffering from oral cancer by up to nine times.

MOUTHWASHES containing alcohol can cause oral cancer and should be removed from supermarket shelves, a dental health study claims.
Scientists say there is now “sufficient evidence” that such mouthwashes contribute to an increased risk of the disease.

The ethanol in mouthwash is thought to allow cancer-causing substances to permeate the lining of the mouth.

Michael McCullough, associate professor of oral medicine at the University of Melbourne, Australia, who led the study, said: “We see people with oral cancer who have no other risk factors than the use of (mouthwash containing alcohol], so what we’ve done is review all the evidence.

“Since this article, further evidence has come out, too. We believe there should be warnings. If it was a facial cream that had the effect of reducing acne but had a four to fivefold increased risk of skin cancer, no-one would be recommending it.”

Professor McCullough, chair of the Australian Dental Association’s therapeutics committee, said the alcohol in mouthwashes “increases the permeability” of the mucus membrane to other carcinogens, such as nicotine.

A toxic breakdown product of alcohol called acetaldehyde that may accumulate in the oral cavity when swished around the mouth is also a “known human carcinogen,” he said.

Top-selling mouthwashes contain as much as 26 per cent alcohol.

Smoking and alcohol are well-established risk factors in causing cancer, but the use of mouthwash containing alcohol is more controversial.

Prof McCullough and co- author Dr Camile Farah, director of research at the University of Queensland’s School of Dentistry, recommended mouthwash be restricted to “short-term” medical use or replaced by alcohol-free products.

The review reported evidence from an international study of 3,210 people, which found daily mouthwash use was a “significant risk factor” for head and neck cancer – irrespective of whether users also drank alcohol or smoked.

But the effects of mouthwash were worst in smokers, who had a ninefold increased risk of cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx. Those who also drank alcohol had more than five times the risk.

However, Professor Damien Walmsley, scientific adviser to the British Dental Association, said further research was needed to substantiate the claims.

“Excessive consumption of alcohol and tobacco are well recognised in the UK as risk factors for developing oral cancers,” he said.

“This paper raises interesting issues, but the evidence showing any link between the prolonged use of mouthwashes containing alcohol and oral cancer is not conclusive, and requires further trials to establish if there is a genuine connection.

“If patients are in any doubt about using mouthwash, they should consult their dentist.”

Dr Nigel Carter, the chief executive of the British Dental Health Foundation, rejected the findings and said: “A recent, and more thorough review of all available evidence carried out by leading experts on behalf of the foundation concluded there were no proven links between alcohol-containing mouthwashes and increased incidence of mouth cancer.

“The public should not worry.”

Last night, a spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson Ltd UK, the manufacturer of Listerine, said: “There is no scientific evidence to support an association between the use of alcohol- containing mouthwashes, such as Listerine, and an increased risk of oral cancer.”

Medicine and Natural Cancer Treatments and Cures

The Federal Trade Commission announced last month 11 separate law enforcement actions challenging deceptive advertising of bogus natural cancer cures. The FTC charged the companies with making unsupported claims that their products cured or treated one or more types of cancer. In each case, the company is charged with violating the FTC Act, which bars deceptive claims. Some complaints allege that the companies also falsely touted clinical or scientific proof for their products.

“There is no credible scientific evidence that any of the products marketed by these companies can prevent, cure, or treat cancer of any kind,” said Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Of the 11 complaints the FTC announced, six have been resolved by proposed settlements; the rest will be litigated. In all cases, the companies will be required to notify consumers who purchased the products challenged in the complaints that there was little or no scientific evidence demonstrating the products’ effectiveness for treating or curing cancer. They also must urge these customers to consult with their doctors about the products. In addition, the companies will be prohibited from selling or disclosing their consumer lists to others. The products the companies marketed include essiac teas and other herbal mixtures, laetrile, black salve (a corrosive ointment), and mushroom extracts.


“Many of these products are scams,” Parnes said, “and let’s face it, when you’re battling cancer, the last thing you need is a scam. The best idea is to talk to your doctor about any treatment that you are thinking about taking.”

The FTC also announced a new Web site about bogus cancer cures. The site – www.ftc.gov/curious – tells consumers how to spot and report bogus claims they see online, and urges people with cancer to talk to their treatment team about any products they’d like to try.

The site features a video and includes a list of resources on cancer treatments from a variety of agencies within the federal government. Information is provided in English and Spanish.

The cases announced September 18th began through an Internet surf conducted by the FTC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Competition Bureau Canada in June 2007. Following the surf, the FTC sent warning letters via e-mail to 112 Web sites between August 2007 and January 2008. Of these, nearly 30 percent either closed their sites or removed the problematic cancer treatment claims. The remainder were reviewed to determine whether a law enforcement action was warranted or whether they should be referred to the FDA or the Competition Bureau.

The FDA sent warning letters to 23 U.S. companies and two foreign individuals. The warning letters stated that because the marketed products claimed to cure, treat, mitigate, or prevent cancer, and because they are not proven to be safe and effective for their labeled use, they are unapproved new drugs marketed in violation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The Competition Bureau sent warning letters to Canadian companies that were selling fraudulent cancer cures online. Almost all the companies have adequately corrected their marketing materials, and the bureau will take additional enforcement actions to ensure compliance by the rest.

Administrative Cases. The FTC sued five companies. The cases will be tried before an administrative law judge at the Commission. In each case, the Commission seeks an order prohibiting the respondents from representing that their products prevent, treat, or cure any type of cancer unless the representation is true, non-misleading, and supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. The FTC also will seek orders prohibiting the respondents from making representations about any health-related products without competent and reliable scientific evidence.