People without Gene for Underarm Odor Still Wear Deodorant

Societal norms often dictate the products people use even if they don’t need them

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

For most, putting on deodorant is a necessary ritual on par with brushing teeth or washing hands. But for people who produce no armpit stench, it is totally unnecessary.

Despite that, nearly three-quarters of those people still use deodorant daily, a new study finds.

The findings, published January 17 in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, show just how much a person's daily life is dictated by what's considered normal.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"They're spending their money, exposing their skin to what may in a few instances not be good for their skin. It sort of suggests to me that there are a lot of conformists around," said study co-author Ian Day, a genetic epidemiologist at the University of Bristol. [10 Odd Facts About the Female Body]

Smelly genes

Several years ago ago, scientists discovered that a gene called ABCC11 determined whether people produced wet or dry earwax. Interestingly, people who produce the "dry" version of earwax also lack a chemical in their armpits that bacteria feed on to cause underarm odor.

"This key gene is basically the single determinant of whether you do produce underarm odor or not," Day said.

While only 2 percent of Europeans lack the genes for smelly armpits, most East Asians and almost all Koreans lack this gene, Day told LiveScience.

No one knows exactly why gene prevalence varies so much between populations, but its absence in East Asia suggests that being stinky was evolutionarily selected against there over the last several thousand years, he said.

Unnecessary routine

The new findings came as a surprising twist on a larger study investigating chemical exposures in 6,495 women and their babies in Britain. Researchers took blood samples (which contain genetic material) from the women and asked them what types of hygiene products they used daily. As a result, the researchers could investigate how genes related to product usage.

About 98 percent of the women had the gene for smell-producing armpits. Of those, 95 percent used deodorant on a regular basis.

But of the the 117 non-odor producing women, over three-quarters still used deodorant daily. That suggests the majority of women are using a product every day, when they have no need to, Day said.

Though the team didn't look at men, they think the results should generalize. (Other studies have found that men in general are slightly less fastidious in their deodorant use, Day said.)

Because the study didn't intend to look at deodorant use, the researchers can't tease out why smell-free women continue to slather on the odor-reducing product. But one possibility is that social pressure or conformity plays a large part in some of our most common hygiene routines, Day said.

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

LiveScience is one of the biggest and most trusted popular science websites operating today, reporting on the latest discoveries, groundbreaking research and fascinating breakthroughs that impact you and the wider world.

More by LiveScience

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe