New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe