Today, the conversation is much more complicated.

Because we now have millions of patients taking medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide, increasingly large observational datasets, randomized clinic…

Read more

Cancer.

But an abnormal mammogram is not a breast cancer diagnosis. In fact, the overwhelming majority of women who are called back after a screening mammogram will not ultimately be diagnosed with breast cancer.

“Abnormal” simply…

Read more

If you’ve followed me for any length of time, you’ve probably noticed that I talk about fragrance a lot.

Fragranced laundry detergent.

Scented candles.

Perfume.

Air fresheners.

Dryer sheets.

Lotions, body washes, shampoos, cleaning products—and even products marketed specifically for children.

And inevitably, someone asks:

“Are you saying fragrance causes cancer?”

No.

That would be an oversimplification of the science, and it isn’t what the evidence currently shows.

But here’s the conversation I think we should be having:

When we are exposed to dozens of personal care and household products every day, what does chronic exposure to the endocrine-disrupting chemicals found in some of those products mean for our long-term health?

And perhaps more importantly:

If an exposure isn’t necessary and is relatively easy to reduce, do we need absolute proof that it causes cancer before deciding to use less of it?

For me, the answer is no.

Let’s get into the science.

First: “Fragrance” Is Not One Ingredient

This is probably the most important thing to understand.

When you turn over a bottle and see:

Fragrance

or

Parfum

you aren’t necessarily looking at one chemical.

You’re looking at a fragrance formulation that can contain numerous individual ingredients.

And consumers may not know exactly what all of those ingredients are simply from reading the label.

One analysis found that approximately 74% of personal care products evaluated listed “fragrance” without disclosing the individual fragrance constituents.

That matters because some chemicals associated with fragranced personal-care products—including certain phthalates, parabens and synthetic musks—have raised concerns because of their potential endocrine activity.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals, or EDCs, are chemicals capable of interfering with the body’s hormonal system.

And hormones matter tremendously in oncology.

Estrogen signaling, for example, plays an important role in the development and progression of many breast cancers.

That doesn’t mean an endocrine disruptor automatically causes breast cancer.

It means that when we’re discussing cancer prevention, chemicals capable of interacting with hormone pathways deserve our attention.

Why Breast Cancer Is Where This Conversation Gets Particularly Interesting

Approximately 70% of breast cancers are hormone-receptor positive.

These cancers use hormonal signaling—particularly estrogen—to help drive their growth.

This is exactly why some of our most effective breast cancer treatments work by interfering with estrogen.

Tamoxifen blocks estrogen receptors.

Aromatase inhibitors reduce estrogen production.

Ovarian suppression decreases ovarian estrogen production.

So when researchers investigate environmental chemicals capable of mimicking estrogen, altering estrogen receptors or affecting enzymes involved in estrogen production, there is a biologically plausible reason to pay attention.

Again:

Biological plausibility is not the same thing as proving causation.

But it helps explain why researchers are studying these chemicals so closely.

The Phthalate Question

Phthalates are a group of chemicals used for numerous purposes, including making plastics flexible. Certain phthalates have also historically been used in fragrance formulations as solvents or fixatives.

Several phthalates have demonstrated endocrine-disrupting properties.

But when we look at actual human breast cancer studies, the picture isn’t black and white.

Some studies find associations.

Others don’t.

And that distinction matters.

The Taiwan 20-Year Cohort

A long-term Taiwanese cohort involving 11,923 participants found elevated DEHP exposure was associated with higher breast cancer risk.

Women with elevated urinary DEHP had an odds ratio of approximately 1.71 for breast cancer.

Even more interesting was what happened when researchers considered susceptibility.

Women with:

• high DEHP exposure,

• a higher percentage of MEHP metabolism,

• and earlier menarche

had an odds ratio of approximately 7.52.

That doesn’t mean DEHP increases everyone’s breast cancer risk sevenfold.

It suggests something much more nuanced:

Our individual biology may influence how environmental exposures affect us.

The Danish Study: More Than One Million Women

One of the largest datasets comes from a nationwide Danish cohort involving approximately 1.12 million women, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

For most phthalates, researchers did not find a significant breast cancer association.

That’s important.

But high cumulative exposure to dibutyl phthalate (DBP) was associated with approximately a twofold increased rate of estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer.

The reported hazard ratio was approximately:

HR 1.9 (95% CI 1.1–3.5).

That ER-positive finding is particularly interesting given the endocrine activity that has made phthalates an area of research in the first place.

But it still does not establish that DBP caused those cancers.

And Then We Have a Large Study That Found Nothing

This is exactly why I don’t tell people:

“Phthalates cause breast cancer.”

The Women’s Health Initiative evaluated approximately 1,257 postmenopausal women and measured 13 urinary phthalate metabolites.

Researchers found no significant association between the measured metabolites and subsequent breast cancer risk.

For DEHP metabolites, for example, the odds ratio was approximately:

OR 1.03 (95% CI 0.91–1.17).

Essentially null.

A 2025 scoping review came to the conclusion you’d probably expect after looking across this literature:

The epidemiological evidence remains mixed.

Some studies find associations—particularly for certain compounds, breast cancer subtypes or susceptible populations—while others don’t.

And this is where social media tends to fail us.

We’re constantly forced into:

TOXIC

or

TOTALLY SAFE.

Science rarely works that way.

What About Parabens?

Parabens are preservatives commonly used in cosmetics and personal-care products.

And parabens are particularly interesting in the breast cancer conversation because they can demonstrate estrogenic activity.

Several observational studies have identified associations worth discussing.

An analysis using NHANES data from 2005–2016 involving approximately 9,615 participants reported associations between higher urinary concentrations of ethylparaben, methylparaben and propylparaben and breast cancer prevalence.

Another study—the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project—included 711 breast cancer cases and 598 controls.

Women in the highest versus lowest exposure categories for methylparaben, propylparaben and total parabens had odds ratios ranging approximately from:

1.31 to 1.50.

Interestingly, associations appeared stronger among women with a BMI below 25.

Researchers are also investigating potential mechanisms.

Parabens have been shown experimentally to:

• activate estrogen receptors,

• interact with HER2-related signaling,

• influence matrix metalloproteinases involved in invasion,

• and affect epigenetic regulators such as EZH2.

There is also animal evidence.

In one mouse model, exposure to methylparaben and propylparaben at levels corresponding to established acceptable daily intake levels increased mammary tumor volume and was associated with a 28–91% increase in pulmonary metastases compared with controls.

But I need to emphasize something:

Mice are not humans.

Animal studies are useful for identifying biological mechanisms and generating hypotheses.

They cannot tell us that the same exposure will produce the same cancer outcome in a human being.

One of the Most Fascinating Studies: What Happens When You Remove the Exposure?

This is where this subject became particularly interesting to me.

Most environmental exposure research asks:

What happens when people are exposed?

The REDUXE study essentially asked another question:

What happens if we reduce that exposure?

Women stopped using personal-care products containing parabens and phthalates for 28 days.

Researchers observed decreases in urinary biomarkers of exposure.

But they also found something much more interesting.

Breast tissue showed changes in gene-expression patterns associated with pathways including:

PI3K-AKT/mTOR signaling and autophagy.

Some cancer-associated molecular phenotypes shifted toward a more normal pattern following the intervention.

Read that carefully.

The study did not demonstrate that avoiding fragrance prevents breast cancer.

It did not show fewer cancers.

It was small and evaluated molecular endpoints rather than cancer incidence.

But it provides fascinating evidence that relatively short-term changes in personal-care-product exposure can produce measurable biological changes in breast tissue.

That is exactly the type of research I want to see more of.

What About Perfume Itself?

Another recent study deserves discussion.

A 2025 laboratory screening evaluated 42 perfumes for biological activity.

Researchers reported striking findings related to genotoxicity and aromatase activity.

A single 100-µL application exceeded the reported half-maximal genotoxic dose by approximately 77-fold and an aromatase-related inhibitory concentration by approximately 9,090-fold, with effects observed across products regardless of price or brand.

Those numbers sound terrifying.

But laboratory concentration comparisons cannot simply be translated into:

“One spray of perfume damages your DNA and causes cancer.”

That is not what this research proves.

How chemicals behave in an experimental assay is not necessarily equivalent to what happens after spraying perfume onto human skin, where absorption, metabolism, distribution and elimination all influence actual exposure.

Still, these studies can identify biological activity that warrants further investigation.

And that’s exactly how I interpret this research.

Not panic.

A signal worth studying.

The Sister Study Gives Us Another Piece of the Puzzle

The Sister Study follows approximately 47,000 women and has generated valuable research examining environmental and lifestyle exposures and breast cancer.

Analyses of beauty and personal-care-product use have reported modest elevations in breast cancer risk among frequent users of certain categories, with hazard ratios around 1.13–1.15 in some analyses.

That is not a massive increase.

And observational research comes with an enormous limitation:

People who use more beauty products may differ from people who use fewer products in many other ways.

Researchers cannot always determine whether an association comes from:

• fragrance,

• preservatives,

• another chemical,

• multiple chemicals acting together,

• or completely different correlated behaviors.

So again, this isn’t proof.

But when observational signals align with endocrine-disruption research and experimental evidence, I think they deserve continued investigation.

The Part That Concerns Me Most Isn’t One Bottle of Perfume

This is probably the biggest misconception about environmental exposure.

People ask:

“Is this product going to give me cancer?”

That’s usually the wrong question.

Cancer develops through an extraordinarily complicated interaction between genetics, aging, hormones, metabolism, immune function, lifestyle, environmental exposures and chance.

We are rarely talking about:

one product → one exposure → one cancer.

We’re talking about cumulative exposure.

Your shampoo.

Conditioner.

Body wash.

Lotion.

Perfume.

Makeup.

Laundry detergent.

Fabric softener.

Dryer sheets.

Dish soap.

Cleaning sprays.

Candles.

Air fresheners.

Hand sanitizer.

Hair products.

Products used in your home.

Products used at work.

Products your children use.

And that’s before we even start talking about phthalate exposure from plastics and food packaging.

Each individual exposure may be tiny.

But we’re not exposed once.

We’re exposed repeatedly, often every day, for decades.

And studying that scientifically is incredibly difficult.

The Dose Makes the Poison… But Hormones Make This More Complicated

Traditional toxicology often operates around the idea that higher doses produce greater toxicity.

Endocrine biology can be more complicated.

Hormones naturally operate at extremely low concentrations.

Some endocrine-disrupting chemicals can interact with hormone receptors and signaling pathways at relatively low exposure levels, and researchers continue to debate the clinical significance of low-dose and mixture effects.

Humans also aren’t exposed to one chemical at a time.

We’re exposed to mixtures.

That makes environmental cancer epidemiology extraordinarily difficult.

You would essentially need to track thousands of people for decades while accurately measuring hundreds of changing exposures.

That’s one reason definitive answers are so hard to obtain.

So Does Fragrance Cause Cancer?

Based on the evidence we currently have:

We cannot say that fragrance causes cancer in humans.

Most individual fragrance compounds are not classified as known human carcinogens by organizations such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) or the U.S. National Toxicology Program.

There is even structure-activity modeling suggesting fragrance chemicals as a broad class may be less likely to behave as genotoxic carcinogens than randomly selected chemicals.

That context matters.

But that’s not the end of the conversation.

The concern is less:

“Perfume is a carcinogen.”

And more:

“Some chemicals encountered through fragranced and personal-care products can have endocrine or other biological activity, and chronic cumulative exposure deserves further study—particularly in hormone-sensitive tissues such as the breast.”

Those are very different statements.

This Is Why I Practice Exposure Reduction—Not Exposure Perfection

Cancer prevention is not about creating a toxin-free life.

That doesn’t exist.

And I don’t want women walking around terrified of touching a scented hand soap.

I use a much simpler framework.

Reduce unnecessary exposures when the alternative is easy.

If I can buy fragrance-free laundry detergent instead of heavily fragranced detergent?

Easy.

I do it.

If I can skip dryer sheets?

I skip them.

If I can clean my home without artificial fragrance?

Great.

If I can use fragrance-free products on my child?

That’s usually my preference.

If I occasionally wear perfume?

I’m not going to panic about it.

This isn’t about perfection.

It’s about reducing the background exposure burden where doing so doesn’t meaningfully decrease your quality of life.

“Fragrance-Free” and “Unscented” Are Not Necessarily the Same Thing

This is one of the easiest changes you can make.

Look for:

FRAGRANCE-FREE

rather than simply:

UNSCENTED

An unscented product can still contain fragrance ingredients designed to mask the natural smell of the formulation.

Guidance on reducing endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure, including from organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), has encouraged reducing exposure to certain chemicals in personal-care products and choosing simpler products when possible.

When I’m shopping, I personally look for products without:

• fragrance/parfum when possible,

• phthalates,

• parabens,

• triclosan,

• and other unnecessary additives.

But remember:

“Natural” doesn’t automatically mean safer.

Essential oils contain biologically active chemicals too.

I care much more about the ingredient list than marketing on the front of the bottle.

And Don’t Let This Distract You From the Big Things

This may be the most important paragraph in this entire article.

Switching your laundry detergent while ignoring established cancer risk factors completely misses the point.

If you want to reduce your cancer risk, we have much stronger evidence for things like:

maintaining a healthy body composition, exercising regularly, limiting alcohol, avoiding tobacco, eating a fiber-rich plant-forward diet, protecting yourself from excessive UV exposure, receiving recommended vaccines and staying current on evidence-based cancer screening.

Those interventions have far stronger evidence than eliminating fragrance.

Environmental exposure reduction belongs alongside those strategies.

Not instead of them.

My Approach as an Oncology Provider

Cancer prevention isn’t about finding one villain.

It’s about stacking small advantages.

I can’t control my genetics.

I can’t eliminate every environmental chemical.

I can’t guarantee that I’ll never develop cancer.

Neither can you.

But there are exposures I can control.

So I choose glass over plastic when practical.

I don’t heat food in plastic.

I filter my water.

I pay attention to the products I put on my skin.

I minimize unnecessary fragrance in my home.

I don’t use heavily fragranced laundry products simply because I don’t need them.

Not because I believe one load of fragranced laundry detergent causes cancer.

But because when I look at the totality of evidence surrounding endocrine-disrupting chemicals, hormone signaling and long-term cumulative exposure, reducing exposures that provide me essentially no health benefit makes sense.

Cancer prevention isn’t one dramatic decision.

It’s hundreds of small decisions repeated over decades.

And fragrance is simply one of them.

This article is for educational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose, treat or prevent disease or replace individualized medical advice.

My husband’s scan found nothing concerning.

Mine identified scoliosis and a kidney cyst. Both were benign, neither required treatment, and neither changed anything meaningful about my health.

In many ways, our experience was typical.

Most asymptomatic people who undergo whole-body MRI do not discover cancer. Some receive completely unremarkable results. Many others learn about benign abnormalities they may have carried for years without symptoms.

That is an important part of the Prenuvo conversation, because whole-body MRI is often marketed as though the possible outcomes are either:

1. It finds a hidden cancer and saves your life.

2. It gives you complete reassurance that you are healthy.

The reality is far more nuanced.

Whole-body MRI can detect clinically important disease. It can also uncover large numbers of benign or uncertain findings, trigger additional testing, miss certain cancers, and create reassurance that may be stronger than the scan actually supports.

After having one myself, I do not regret the experience. But I also would not present Prenuvo as a screening test that everyone needs.

Here is what the research actually shows.

First, what is a Prenuvo scan?

Prenuvo is a direct-to-consumer whole-body MRI.

The scan uses magnetic resonance imaging to examine multiple areas of the body during one session. Unlike CT imaging, MRI does not use ionizing radiation.

That makes the idea understandably appealing.

One scan. No radiation. A broad look throughout the body. The possibility of finding disease before symptoms develop.

However, Prenuvo itself has very little peer-reviewed outcomes research. Most of what we know comes from the broader medical literature on screening whole-body MRI in asymptomatic adults.

That distinction matters.

The central question is not simply whether whole-body MRI can find abnormalities.

It can.

The more important questions are:

• How often does it find cancer?

• How often does it find something benign or unclear?

• How many people require additional testing?

• How many cancers does it miss?

• Does using it actually reduce cancer deaths?

Those answers are much less straightforward.

How often does whole-body MRI find cancer?

Across 10 studies involving 9,024 asymptomatic people, the pooled confirmed cancer detection rate was approximately 1.57%.

Put more simply, cancer was detected in roughly 1 to 2 out of every 100 people scanned.

That is not zero.

For the small percentage of people whose cancer is found early, the scan may feel invaluable.

But it also means that approximately 98 to 99 out of every 100 asymptomatic people screened will not have a cancer detected.

A more recent multicenter study of 327 asymptomatic adults used a standardized reporting system called ONCO-RADS.

In that study:

• 42.2% of participants had at least one finding rated ONCO-RADS 3 or higher.

• Almost all of those findings were classified as indeterminate rather than clearly malignant.

• Only three cancers were ultimately confirmed.

• That represented a cancer detection rate of approximately 0.9%.

This illustrates one of the main issues with whole-body MRI: the number of findings is much larger than the number of cancers.

A Turkish study of 576 people reported a higher cancer detection rate of 2.6%. It also found that 11.2% of participants received treatment prompted by the scan, although that group included noncancer findings such as intracranial aneurysms.

In the largest direct-to-consumer dataset you cited, involving 3,603 participants who underwent whole-body MRI plus cardiac testing:

• 11.2% were referred for further medical consultation.

• Nineteen malignancies were identified.

• That equals a cancer detection rate of approximately 0.5%.

• More than 40% of the people advised to obtain follow-up did not complete it.

That final point deserves attention.

A screening test is only as useful as the system available to interpret, investigate, and appropriately manage its findings.

Receiving a report is not the same thing as receiving coordinated medical care.

My findings were benign—and that is common

My scan identified scoliosis and a kidney cyst.

Neither was dangerous.

Neither required treatment.

These are examples of incidental findings: abnormalities discovered unintentionally while imaging the body for another purpose.

Common incidental findings on whole-body imaging may include:

• Simple kidney cysts

• Liver cysts

• Benign thyroid nodules

• Degenerative spinal changes

• Scoliosis

• Sinus disease

• Ovarian cysts

• Adrenal nodules

• Benign vascular findings

Many people have these conditions without symptoms and without ever needing treatment.

Learning about them is not necessarily harmful. Some people appreciate having more information about their bodies.

The problem is that an MRI does not always immediately distinguish a harmless finding from one that requires further investigation.

That is where the downstream consequences begin.

The most important downside is not the scan itself

MRI does not expose you to radiation.

For many people, that becomes the main selling point.

But the largest potential harm of screening whole-body MRI is not the MRI machine.

It is everything that may happen after the report.

Across the available studies, the pooled prevalence of critical and indeterminate incidental findings was approximately 32.1%.

When additional cardiovascular or colon imaging sequences were included, the proportion approached 50%.

In other words, somewhere between one-third and one-half of healthy people may receive a report containing something that is potentially important, uncertain, or deserving of follow-up.

The pooled false-positive proportion was approximately 16%.

A false positive does not necessarily mean the radiologist made a mistake. It means the scan raised concern for a potentially important abnormality that ultimately did not represent significant disease.

That can lead to:

• Repeat MRI

• CT imaging

• Ultrasound

• Specialist referrals

• Laboratory testing

• Endoscopy

• Biopsy

• Procedures

• Additional costs

• Anxiety while waiting for answers

A BMJ meta-analysis involving 27,643 asymptomatic adults found potentially serious incidental findings in approximately 3.9% of people undergoing combined brain-and-body MRI.

When findings of uncertain seriousness were included, that increased to 12.8%.

Most importantly, only about 20% of the potentially serious incidental findings with a final diagnosis were ultimately confirmed to be serious.

That means the majority of concerning findings led to additional evaluation without revealing a dangerous condition.

In one Li-Fraumeni syndrome surveillance cohort, 53 additional investigations were prompted by benign incidental findings across 325 scans.

That study involved a very high-risk population in whom whole-body MRI has a stronger medical justification. Even there, benign findings created substantial downstream testing.

For an average-risk person undergoing elective screening, the tolerance for those harms should arguably be lower.

The psychological cost is different for everyone

My results did not cause substantial anxiety because the findings were clearly benign.

Not everyone will receive that level of certainty.

Some people are comfortable hearing:

“We found something. It is probably benign, but you need another scan in six months.”

Other people will think about that finding every day for six months.

Some people would rather accept additional testing for the possibility of finding something important early.

Others would prefer not to open the door to investigations that are unlikely to change their health.

Neither response is irrational.

This is why the decision should not be made based only on the promise of early detection. It should include an honest discussion of uncertainty, follow-up, cost, and personal tolerance for ambiguous results.

A clean scan does not mean you are cancer-free

This may be the most underappreciated limitation.

Whole-body MRI can detect disease, but it can also miss disease.

A normal scan should not be interpreted as proof that no cancer is present.

In one Li-Fraumeni surveillance cohort—an extremely high-risk group evaluated by experienced radiologists—whole-body MRI sensitivity was only 42.9%.

Specificity was 95.5%, and the negative predictive value was 97.4%.

That high negative predictive value may sound reassuring, but negative predictive value is heavily influenced by how common disease is in the group being tested.

When cancer is uncommon, most scans will be negative simply because most people do not have cancer.

Sensitivity answers a different question:

Of the cancers that were actually present, how many did the scan detect?

In that study, the scan detected fewer than half.

The exact performance in average-risk consumers will vary by protocol, radiologist, tumor type, tumor size, and location. But the broader point remains: a negative whole-body MRI is not a guarantee.

It may provide some reassurance, but it should not provide complete reassurance.

Prenuvo does not replace standard cancer screening

Whole-body MRI is not equally effective for every organ.

It is not a substitute for screening tests developed and validated for specific cancers.

It does not replace:

• Mammography

• Dedicated breast MRI when medically indicated

• Colonoscopy

• Stool-based colorectal cancer screening

• Cervical cytology or HPV testing

• Low-dose CT lung cancer screening for eligible patients

• Skin examinations when appropriate

This is particularly important for breast cancer prevention.

A proper high-risk breast MRI uses a dedicated breast coil and contrast-enhanced imaging. The facility must also be capable of performing MRI-guided biopsy when a suspicious lesion is found.

A general whole-body MRI does not provide the same breast imaging protocol.

Most consumer whole-body MRI scans are performed without contrast. That further limits the detection of some small breast lesions, liver abnormalities, and other tumors.

Researchers evaluating whole-body MRI have specifically concluded that it performs inadequately as a standalone screening method for breast, colon, and thyroid cancers.

It may be complementary.

It is not a replacement.

A person could have a normal Prenuvo scan and still be overdue for a mammogram, colonoscopy, cervical screening, or lung cancer screening.

That would not represent comprehensive prevention.

It would represent replacing proven screening with an unproven one.

Has whole-body MRI been shown to save lives?

This is the question that matters most.

No study has demonstrated that whole-body MRI screening reduces cancer mortality in average-risk adults.

No study has demonstrated that it reduces all-cause mortality.

There are also no randomized trials showing that offering whole-body MRI to healthy adults helps them live longer compared with following established screening guidelines.

This does not prove that the scan has no benefit.

It means the benefit has not been established.

Screening can create several forms of bias.

Lead-time bias

A cancer may be diagnosed earlier without changing when the person ultimately dies from it.

The survival time measured from diagnosis appears longer, even though life was not actually extended.

Overdiagnosis

A scan may find a cancer that would never have caused symptoms or shortened the person’s life.

That individual may undergo treatment and experience complications without receiving a meaningful survival benefit.

Length-time bias

Screening is more likely to detect slower-growing tumors because they remain detectable for longer periods.

Aggressive cancers may develop and spread between screening intervals.

For this reason, reporting that a scan “found cancer early” is not enough to prove that the screening program saves lives.

The most meaningful outcome would be a reduction in late-stage disease or cancer deaths. We do not yet have that evidence for whole-body MRI in average-risk adults.

What do medical guidelines say?

No major professional society currently recommends routine whole-body MRI screening for average-risk, asymptomatic adults.

The best-established guideline-supported use is in people with Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

Li-Fraumeni syndrome is caused by a pathogenic TP53 variant and is associated with a very high lifetime risk of multiple cancers, often beginning at young ages.

In this population, the balance is different.

The probability of finding cancer is much higher than in the general population, so the potential benefit of surveillance is also greater.

Pooled data from 703 people with Li-Fraumeni syndrome found:

• Approximately 31% had a suspicious lesion on baseline whole-body MRI.

• Around 18% of suspicious lesions were ultimately cancer.

• Forty-one of 46 detected cancers were found at an early stage.

That is a meaningful stage-shift signal.

It supports the use of annual whole-body MRI in this defined, high-risk population.

However, those findings cannot simply be applied to average-risk adults.

A screening test that may be worthwhile in someone with a very high inherited cancer risk may not provide the same benefit when used in someone whose underlying risk is low.

Guidelines also acknowledge that whole-body MRI in Li-Fraumeni syndrome can produce false positives, incidental findings, and possible overdiagnosis.

Even in the population where it is recommended, the tradeoffs remain real.

Cost and follow-up matter

Whole-body MRI is expensive and is generally not covered by insurance when performed as elective screening in an average-risk person.

The initial price is only one part of the potential cost.

Additional expenses may include:

• Repeat imaging

• Specialist appointments

• Biopsies

• Blood tests

• Deductibles

• Travel

• Time away from work

• Ongoing surveillance of incidental findings

There are no established cost-effectiveness data showing that widespread screening of average-risk adults with whole-body MRI represents an efficient use of healthcare resources.

Protocols are also not fully standardized across facilities.

The quality of the scan, sequences obtained, equipment, radiologist experience, reporting system, and follow-up recommendations may all differ.

“Whole-body MRI” is not necessarily one uniform test.

So, was I glad I had one?

Yes.

My experience was straightforward.

My husband’s scan was unremarkable.

My scan showed scoliosis and a benign kidney cyst.

I did not leave with a new cancer diagnosis. I also did not leave believing the scan had permanently cleared me of cancer.

It gave me information.

It gave me firsthand experience with a test that many patients and followers ask about.

It also reinforced that the result is only as useful as the person’s understanding of what it means—and what it does not mean.

I do not regret having it.

But my personal experience does not override the medical evidence.

Would I recommend Prenuvo?

I would not recommend whole-body MRI as routine cancer screening for every average-risk adult.

The current evidence does not show that it reduces cancer deaths, and professional guidelines do not endorse it for population-wide screening.

The rate of incidental and indeterminate findings is much higher than the rate of cancer detection.

False positives, additional testing, cost, anxiety, and the possibility of false reassurance all need to be considered.

But I also do not think the decision is completely black and white.

A person may understand all of those limitations and still decide that the information is worth it.

That person should go into the process knowing:

• Cancer is detected in only a small percentage of asymptomatic people.

• Benign and uncertain findings are much more common.

• Additional testing may be recommended.

• The scan can miss cancers.

• A normal scan does not mean cancer-free.

• It does not replace organ-specific screening.

• It has not been proven to reduce mortality in average-risk adults.

• The strongest guideline-supported use is in certain hereditary cancer syndromes, especially Li-Fraumeni syndrome.

After weighing those facts, some people will decide against it.

Others may still choose to proceed.

That is where individual preference comes in.

My bottom line

Prenuvo is not a scam, but it is also not a comprehensive cancer-prevention solution.

It is a sophisticated imaging test with real capabilities, important blind spots, and uncertain value when used as routine screening in average-risk adults.

My experience was benign and uneventful, which is how these scans end for many people.

The greatest value of the experience was not that it proved I was healthy.

It was that it helped me better understand both the appeal and the limitations of whole-body MRI.

I would never use it to replace recommended cancer screening.

I would never tell someone that a clean scan means they are cancer-free.

And I would never recommend it without first discussing the likelihood of incidental findings, downstream testing, cost, and the absence of proven mortality benefit.

But if someone understands those limitations and still decides that the additional information is worth it, I do not think that decision is automatically unreasonable.

The goal should not be to sell the scan or shame people for wanting one.

The goal should be informed decision-making—without marketing hype, false reassurance, or dismissal of the very real reasons people seek more information about their health.

They’re in birthday party favor bags, checkout aisles, toy stores, and prize boxes. My daughter loves them, and like many parents, I’ve had plenty of them in our home.

I never thought much about them until I started noticing two things.

First, they all seemed to have a strong chemical smell.

Second, two of the three newest squishies we bought broke open shortly after we purchased them. That made me stop and wonder: What exactly are these toys made of?

As an oncology provider, curiosity like that usually sends me straight to the research.

What I found didn’t prove that squishy toys cause cancer. In fact, there is currently no direct human evidence linking squishy toys to cancer.

But what I did find was enough to change how I shop for my own family.

I also want to be realistic.

These toys are incredibly popular with my daughter’s age group. She’ll see them at friends’ houses, birthday parties, and school. I don’t think it’s possible—or even necessary—to eliminate every exposure from childhood.

Instead, I focus on the exposures I can reasonably reduce inside our own home.

For me, squishy toys became one of those choices.

What are squishy toys made from?

Most squishy toys are made from polyurethane foam or soft plastics. To give them their soft, slow-rising texture, manufacturers use a variety of chemicals during production, including solvents, plasticizers, coatings, fragrances, and stabilizers.

The problem is that many of these chemicals don’t stay locked inside the toy forever.

Some slowly migrate onto children’s hands.

Others are released into the air.

Some are still being identified by researchers today.

Why children are more vulnerable

Children aren’t simply “small adults.”

Compared with adults, they:

• Put toys and their hands in their mouths more frequently.

• Absorb more chemicals for every pound of body weight.

• Have developing brains and hormone systems that are more sensitive to environmental chemicals.

• Have decades of life ahead of them for diseases with long latency periods to develop.

A 2025 systematic review identified 206 potentially hazardous chemicals in children’s products, including 170 found in toys.

That doesn’t mean every toy is dangerous.

It does mean children’s products deserve careful study.

The chemical smell isn’t your imagination

One of the first things I noticed about squishies was the smell.

If you’ve ever opened one and immediately noticed a strong chemical odor, there’s actually a reason for that.

A 2026 study measured the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) released from commercially available squishy-type toys.

Researchers found:

• VOC emissions ranged from 24.8 to 775 micrograms per cubic metre per gram of product.

• The largest release occurred immediately after opening the packaging.

• Larger toys—and multiple toys together—produced proportionally greater emissions.

• Sticky and heavily scented squishies released the greatest amount of volatile chemicals.

Two manufacturing solvents detected were dimethylformamide (DMF) and methylene chloride, both residual chemicals from the manufacturing process. In screening comparisons, measured concentrations exceeded U.S. EPA reference concentrations used to identify potential concerns for airborne exposure.

These screening measurements are not the same thing as measuring what a child actually inhales, but they do raise important questions about repeated exposure—especially when children often hold these toys close to their faces for extended periods.

Phthalates: the chemicals that make plastic soft

Many squishy toys and squeeze toys rely on chemicals called phthalates to stay flexible.

Unlike ingredients that are permanently locked into the plastic, phthalates slowly migrate onto hands and into saliva over time.

Research has found:

• Nearly one in four toys tested in one European market exceeded the legal limit for phthalates.

• One toy contained more than 36% phthalates by weight.

• Between 2012 and 2022, European regulators issued more than 1,100 safety alerts involving toys with illegal phthalate levels.

• BPA and phthalates have also been detected wiping off the surface of toys used in childcare centers.

Even products labeled “phthalate-free” aren’t always free from concern.

Some manufacturers simply replace them with newer plasticizers that haven’t been studied nearly as extensively.

BPA isn’t the whole story anymore

Most parents have heard of BPA.

What many don’t realize is that manufacturers often replace BPA with closely related chemicals that may have similar biological activity.

Researchers studying children’s products have detected BPA, BPS, bisphenol B, bisphenol E, and other related compounds migrating from toys into artificial saliva.

Some products exceeded European safety thresholds, while others raised concerns despite remaining within current legal limits.

Simply replacing one bisphenol with another doesn’t necessarily eliminate potential health concerns.

The chemicals we haven’t identified yet concern me the most

This was probably the most surprising part of the research.

Scientists tested baby toys using artificial saliva to see whether chemicals leaking from the toys behaved like estrogen.

Nine toys demonstrated measurable hormone activity.

Researchers could explain only two of them by identifying BPA.

The other seven showed hormone-disrupting activity even though testing for dozens of known endocrine-disrupting chemicals couldn’t explain it.

In other words…

Some toys were releasing biologically active chemicals that current testing couldn’t even identify.

A separate 2025 study identified 165 different chemicals in toys designed for very young children, including flame retardants, antioxidants, and non-phthalate plasticizers—several never previously reported in toys.

That’s a reminder that passing today’s safety testing doesn’t necessarily mean we’ve identified every chemical that’s present.

What does this actually mean for our health?

This is where it’s important not to overstate the evidence.

There is no study showing that a specific squishy toy causes cancer.

There are also no human studies showing children who play with squishies develop cancer more often.

The concern is different.

Many of the chemicals found in or associated with these products belong to broader groups known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals or chemicals with established toxicologic concerns.

Research has linked early-life exposure to some of these chemicals with effects on hormone function, metabolism, and neurodevelopment. Associations with ADHD-type symptoms have been observed most consistently in boys, although no single toy can be blamed for those outcomes.

As an oncology provider, I think about cumulative exposure.

Cancer prevention isn’t usually about one product.

It’s about reducing unnecessary exposures wherever it’s practical to do so.

What I do instead

I’m not trying to create a perfectly chemical-free childhood.

That doesn’t exist.

Instead, I focus on practical, realistic changes.

If my daughter receives a squishy toy:

• I open it outside or in a well-ventilated area.

• I let it air out before she plays with it.

• I avoid heavily scented versions.

• I don’t keep them in her bedroom.

• I encourage handwashing after playing.

• If one becomes sticky, torn, leaking, or develops a persistent chemical smell, I throw it away.

• I avoid letting her play with them in the bath, where chemicals can migrate into warm water.

Whenever possible, I buy toys from established manufacturers that meet recognized safety standards rather than inexpensive, unbranded imports.

My bottom line

As both an oncology provider and a mom, I don’t make decisions based on headlines or fear.

I make them based on evidence.

The evidence today does not show that squishy toys cause cancer.

But it does show they can release a mixture of solvents, plasticizers, bisphenols, and other chemicals that children are uniquely positioned to absorb.

Could any one squishy toy meaningfully increase a child’s cancer risk?

Probably not.

But that’s not the question I ask myself.

The question I ask is much simpler:

If I can easily reduce an unnecessary chemical exposure without making my daughter’s childhood any less joyful, why wouldn’t I?

For our family, choosing different toys was an easy decision.

Will it build equity?

Will it appreciate?

Is it the smartest use of my money?

Those questions aren’t wrong. In fact, they’re important. But over the past few months, I’ve started asking a different one:

Does this make my life better?

Those two questions don’t always lead to the same answer.

Recently, my family made a decision that, on paper, doesn’t look particularly wise. We sold our home and moved into a rental.

To many people, that sounds backwards. Why would you willingly give up a home you own to pay someone else’s mortgage?

I understand the reaction because I asked myself the same question.

The answer wasn’t financial.

It was personal.

It was about creating a life that supports the way we actually want to live.

As an oncology provider, I spend my days thinking about prevention. We often talk about nutrition, exercise, sleep, and environmental exposures. Those things matter. But over the years, I’ve come to appreciate something else that rarely makes the list:

Your environment quietly shapes your health every single day.

Not just the air you breathe or the products in your home—but the way your neighborhood influences your choices.

Our new home is smaller.

It’s more expensive.

And yet, almost immediately, I noticed something had changed.

We walk more.

Not because we suddenly became more disciplined, but because walking became the easier option.

Instead of getting in the car for every errand, we can simply leave the house on foot. Coffee, dinner, ice cream with my daughter, a quick trip to the store—they’ve become part of our daily routine instead of something that requires planning.

We’re closer to the beach.

Before, going to the beach felt like an event. We’d pack the car, find parking, and decide whether it was worth the effort.

Now it’s close enough that we actually go.

We’ve traded occasional visits for regular moments—morning walks, sunsets, an hour outside simply because it’s easy.

That proximity has changed our habits more than I expected.

We also have an outdoor space that naturally draws us outside.

Instead of spending another evening indoors, we find ourselves sitting outside after dinner, watching the sun go down, letting our daughter play, or simply enjoying the quiet.

None of these changes feel dramatic on their own.

But together, they’ve changed the rhythm of our days.

And that has made me think differently about what “living well” actually means.

We spend so much time trying to optimize our finances that we rarely stop to ask whether we’ve optimized our lives.

We compare mortgage rates.

We calculate investment returns.

We negotiate for the best deal.

Yet we almost never calculate the value of living somewhere that encourages us to move our bodies, spend time outside, or feel calmer when we wake up in the morning.

Those benefits don’t appear on a spreadsheet.

There’s no line item for “walked to dinner.”

No appreciation calculator for “watched another sunset with my family.”

No budgeting app tracks how often you chose to go outside simply because it was easy.

But I would argue those things have value.

Perhaps more than we realize.

I’m not suggesting everyone should spend more money or move closer to the beach.

This isn’t about a specific house or a specific zip code.

It’s about recognizing that sometimes the most meaningful investments aren’t the ones that maximize your net worth.

They’re the ones that improve your daily life.

We’ve been taught to think of wealth as something measured by assets.

Lately, I’ve been wondering if it’s also measured by mornings that begin with a walk.

By neighborhoods that invite connection.

By children who spend more time outdoors.

By less time in traffic and more time doing the things that make us feel alive.

Those things are difficult to quantify.

But they’re impossible to ignore once you experience them.

Financially, this move may not have been the obvious choice.

Personally, it already feels like one of the best investments we’ve ever made.

Maybe living well costs more sometimes.

But perhaps the greater cost is building a life that looks perfect on paper while quietly making it harder to enjoy every day.

I’m beginning to believe that the true return on investment isn’t always found in the value of your home.

Sometimes, it’s found in the value of your life.

Most of us don’t spend much time thinking about the water coming out of our kitchen faucet.

We drink it because we’re told it’s healthy. We cook with it. We make coffee with it. We fill our children’s water bottles without giving it a second thought. If it comes from the tap, we assume it’s been tested, regulated, and therefore completely safe.

I used to think that way too.

But after spending more than a decade in oncology, I’ve learned that cancer prevention is rarely about one catastrophic exposure. It’s usually the result of a lifetime of small exposures, genetics, lifestyle, and chance interacting together.

That doesn’t mean we should live in fear of everything around us.

It does mean we should pay attention when good science begins pointing us in a particular direction.

One of the biggest misconceptions I see is the belief that if something falls below a government regulatory limit, it carries no risk.

That’s not actually what those limits mean.

Regulatory standards are designed to reduce risk across an entire population. They are based on the best evidence available at the time they’re established, but science continues to evolve. As new research emerges, we’re sometimes surprised to learn that measurable health effects may occur at concentrations well below what current regulations allow.

That doesn’t mean our drinking water is “unsafe.”

It doesn’t mean everyone should panic.

But it does mean it’s worth understanding what the evidence actually says—especially when we’re talking about something we consume every single day.

According to the American Cancer Society, the drinking water contaminants with the strongest evidence linking them to cancer include arsenic, disinfection by-products, and radioactive contaminants. More recently, growing research has also raised concerns about nitrate and PFAS, often called “forever chemicals.”

When I started digging into the literature, I wasn’t looking for reasons to become afraid of my tap water.

I was asking a different question.

If there are simple ways to reduce everyday exposures that have meaningful scientific evidence behind them, are they worth considering?

For my family, the answer was yes.

Let’s look at what the research actually shows.

Arsenic

Arsenic is one of the most well-established carcinogens found in drinking water.

Unlike many contaminants, arsenic isn’t necessarily the result of pollution. It occurs naturally in certain geological formations and can contaminate groundwater in many parts of the United States, particularly the Southwest, New England, the upper Midwest, and portions of the West.

The Environmental Protection Agency currently limits arsenic in public drinking water to 10 parts per billion, a standard that was lowered from 50 parts per billion in 2001.

Long-term exposure through drinking water has been associated with cancers of the:

• Bladder

• Lung

• Kidney

• Liver

• Skin

None of that is new.

What caught my attention was the newer research looking at arsenic levels below the current EPA limit.

A 2026 ecological study from Washington State compared counties with different arsenic concentrations in their drinking water. Researchers found that people living in counties with the highest arsenic levels had a 21% higher risk of bladder cancer and a 20% higher risk of prostate cancer compared with those living in counties with the lowest arsenic levels.

Here’s the part that made me stop.

The highest arsenic concentrations in that study ranged from just 4.16 to 7.50 parts per billion.

Every single one of those values was still below the EPA’s current limit of 10 parts per billion.

Now, it’s important to understand what this study can—and cannot—tell us.

This was an ecological study, meaning it found an association, not proof that arsenic directly caused those cancers. Many factors influence cancer risk, and studies like this can’t account for every one of them.

But they do raise an important question.

If we’re consistently seeing higher cancer rates at arsenic levels below the current regulatory limit, are today’s standards as protective as we once believed?

It’s a question researchers continue to explore.

Disinfection By-Products: The Tradeoff Most People Don’t Know About

This was probably the section of the research that surprised me the most.

Chlorination has been one of the greatest public health achievements in modern history.

Before widespread water disinfection, infectious diseases spread through drinking water claimed countless lives.

So let me be very clear:

Chlorinating our drinking water saves lives.

But like many things in medicine, there can be tradeoffs.

When chlorine reacts with naturally occurring organic material in water, it forms compounds called disinfection by-products, often abbreviated as DBPs.

The two major regulated groups are:

• Trihalomethanes (THMs)

• Haloacetic acids (HAAs)

The EPA currently allows total trihalomethane concentrations of up to 80 µg/L in public drinking water.

However, several newer studies suggest measurable increases in cancer risk may occur well before that regulatory limit is reached.

A 2025 systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis found that people with the highest exposure to trihalomethanes had a 33% higher risk of bladder cancer compared with those with the lowest exposure.

What really stood out to me was that statistically significant increases in bladder cancer risk began at approximately 41 µg/L—roughly half of the current EPA standard.

The same review also found a 15% higher risk of colorectal cancer associated with higher trihalomethane exposure.

Another large Swedish population-based study found that men exposed to trihalomethane concentrations of 15 µg/L or higher had a 26% increased risk of colorectal cancer, with the strongest association seen in cancers affecting the proximal colon.

Researchers have also begun identifying possible links with uterine cancer.

A 2026 study following more than 53,000 California educators found that women exposed to higher total trihalomethane levels had an 18% higher risk of uterine cancer and a 23% higher risk of endometrioid tumors compared with women exposed to lower levels.

A separate dose-response meta-analysis estimated that overall cancer risk began increasing around 40 µg/L for men and 55 µg/L for women—again, below today’s regulatory standard.

One additional finding worth mentioning is that brominated disinfection by-products appear to be both more genotoxic and more carcinogenic than chlorinated compounds, making them an area of increasing scientific interest.

Reading studies like these doesn’t make me think we should stop disinfecting our water.

Not at all.

What it tells me is that our understanding of long-term environmental exposures continues to evolve.

And as it evolves, I think it’s reasonable to ask whether there are simple ways to reduce those exposures without sacrificing the enormous public health benefits that clean drinking water has provided.

That brings us to two contaminants that have received enormous attention over the past several years: nitrate and PFAS.

Nitrate

Nitrate contamination is one of the most common drinking water issues in the United States, particularly in agricultural areas where fertilizer runoff can enter groundwater and public water systems.

The EPA currently limits nitrate-nitrogen in drinking water to 10 mg/L.

So why does nitrate matter?

Once it’s ingested, nitrate can be converted within the body into N-nitroso compounds, which are well-established animal carcinogens. Researchers have spent years studying whether long-term exposure through drinking water may contribute to cancer risk in humans.

The strongest evidence has been found with gastric (stomach) cancer.

A systematic review and meta-analysis found a positive association between nitrate exposure in drinking water and gastric cancer, with an odds ratio of 1.91 (95% CI 1.09–3.33) for every 10 mg/L increase in nitrate ion.

Additional studies have also identified possible associations with other cancers.

The Agricultural Health Study, a large U.S. cohort that followed participants for an average of nearly 22 years, found that drinking water nitrate-nitrogen levels exceeding 10 mg/L were associated with:

• 16% higher risk of total prostate cancer

• 22% higher risk of aggressive prostate cancer

Researchers have also investigated breast cancer.

A French prospective cohort study found that women with the highest intake of nitrate from drinking water had a 51% higher risk of breast cancer compared with women in the lowest exposure group.

As with the studies we’ve already discussed, these findings demonstrate associations rather than direct cause and effect. Cancer develops from a complex interaction of genetics, lifestyle, environment, and chance.

But when multiple well-designed studies continue pointing in the same direction, I think they’re worth paying attention to.

PFAS: The “Forever Chemicals”

If you’ve paid attention to environmental health news over the past few years, you’ve probably heard the term PFAS.

These chemicals have earned the nickname “forever chemicals” because they break down extremely slowly, both in the environment and in our bodies.

They’ve been used in everything from firefighting foam and non-stick cookware to stain-resistant fabrics, food packaging, and countless industrial products.

In 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PFOA as a Group 1 carcinogen, meaning there is sufficient evidence that it causes cancer in humans—specifically kidney and testicular cancer.

What surprised me most was this statistic:

More than 98% of Americans have detectable levels of PFOA and PFOS in their blood.

In other words, this isn’t an exposure affecting a small group of people.

It’s affecting almost all of us.

A 2026 nationwide geospatial analysis using data from the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule found that higher concentrations of multiple PFAS compounds in drinking water—including PFOA, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFNA—were independently associated with higher cancer history prevalence across census tracts.

Again, this type of study cannot prove PFAS directly caused those cancers.

But when viewed alongside laboratory studies, toxicology data, and what we already know about certain PFAS compounds, it adds to a growing body of evidence that these chemicals deserve serious attention.

Some Communities Face Higher Exposure

Not everyone’s water carries the same potential risk.

If you have a private well, your water is not regulated under the same federal standards as public drinking water.

That means testing falls almost entirely on the homeowner.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has noted that private well users did not experience the same reduction in arsenic exposure seen after the EPA lowered the allowable arsenic limit in public water systems in 2001.

Agricultural communities may face greater nitrate contamination because of fertilizer runoff.

Researchers have also identified stronger associations between arsenic exposure and rural, American Indian, and semi-urban Hispanic communities, highlighting areas where additional monitoring and regulatory support may be especially important.

Even where you live geographically may matter.

Coastal regions naturally contain higher bromide concentrations in their source water. During chlorination, bromide can contribute to the formation of brominated disinfection by-products, which appear to be more carcinogenic than their chlorinated counterparts.

Researchers also believe that rising temperatures, flooding, and pollution associated with climate change may increase the formation of these compounds over time.

Are Our Current Standards Protective Enough?

As I worked through the research for this article, one theme kept appearing over and over again.

Several studies identified increased cancer risk at contaminant concentrations below current U.S. regulatory limits.

For example:

• Bladder cancer risk associated with trihalomethanes became statistically significant at approximately 41 µg/L, while the EPA limit remains 80 µg/L.

• Increased urologic cancer risk has been observed at arsenic concentrations well below the current 10 parts per billion standard.

That doesn’t necessarily mean current regulations are wrong.

It means science doesn’t stand still.

Regulatory agencies make decisions using the best available evidence at the time. As better research becomes available, recommendations and standards often evolve.

We’ve seen that happen repeatedly throughout medicine.

So What Can You Actually Do?

This is always my favorite part of these conversations.

Because information without practical action isn’t very helpful.

The first step is simply knowing where your water comes from.

If your home is supplied by a public water system, review your annual Consumer Confidence Report, which outlines the contaminants detected in your local water.

If you rely on a private well, regular testing for arsenic, nitrate, and other contaminants is one of the most important things you can do.

Filtration can also make a meaningful difference.

Research shows that granular activated carbon filters can reduce trihalomethanes by 75–93% and haloacetic acids by 65–70%.

Reverse osmosis systems are effective at reducing arsenic, nitrate, and PFAS.

One point that surprised me is that boiling water isn’t a universal solution. While boiling can reduce volatile disinfection by-products like trihalomethanes by more than 90%, it does not effectively remove non-volatile contaminants such as haloacetic acids.

One finding I found particularly reassuring is that drinking more water itself may actually help lower bladder cancer risk by diluting urinary carcinogens and increasing how frequently they’re flushed from the bladder.

In other words, the goal isn’t to drink less water.

It’s to make the water you’re drinking as clean as reasonably possible.

After reading through the research, I found myself coming back to the same conclusion I often reach in oncology.

I don’t need perfect evidence that changing one thing will prevent cancer.

That’s not how cancer works.

Cancer develops over decades through a complicated interaction of genetics, environment, lifestyle, aging, and plain bad luck.

But if there’s a practical change that has good scientific rationale, relatively little downside, and can reduce one of the exposures my family encounters every single day, I’m comfortable making it.

That’s ultimately why I switched the water filter in my own home.

Not because I believe it’s a magic solution.

Not because I think everyone has to do exactly what I do.

But because after spending years treating people with cancer, it’s one of the changes that made sense for my family based on the evidence we have today.

If you’ve followed me for a while, you know my philosophy has never been about fear.

It’s about understanding the science, reducing unnecessary exposures where we reasonably can, and making informed decisions without becoming overwhelmed.

After reading the research, I wanted a filtration system that could address many of the contaminants discussed in this article—not just improve the taste of my water. I ultimately chose the one that’s now in my own home because it uses independent third-party tested filtration, is designed to reduce contaminants like PFAS, arsenic, chlorine and chlorine by-products, heavy metals, and other common drinking water contaminants, while avoiding unnecessary plastic contact during filtration with its stainless steel design. It gave me the best balance of contaminant reduction, transparency, and practicality for my family. If you’d like to see the exact system I chose and learn more about why I felt comfortable bringing it into my home, I’ve linked it below.

The Water Filter I Use and Love

What most parents don’t realize is that many of these everyday products can also be a source of unnecessary chemical exposure.

As an oncology provider, I don’t believe in fear-based health advice. I also don’t believe perfection is possible—or necessary. But I do believe that when there are simple swaps that can reduce exposure to chemicals associated with hormone disruption, developmental effects, or even cancer risk, they’re worth considering.

The goal isn’t to eliminate every exposure.

The goal is to reduce the ones we reasonably can.

Why Children Are More Vulnerable

Children aren’t just small adults.

Their organs are still developing, they breathe more air relative to their body size, they spend more time on the floor and touching surfaces, and they constantly put their hands near their mouths. Over the course of a school day, those small exposures can add up.

Researchers have identified more than 200 potentially hazardous chemicals in children’s products, including endocrine-disrupting chemicals and compounds with potential carcinogenic effects. These chemicals can be inhaled, absorbed through the skin, or ingested through normal hand-to-mouth behaviors.

Again, this doesn’t mean every product is dangerous.

It means choosing safer materials when possible is a simple way to reduce overall exposure.

The Chemicals I Pay Attention To

PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) and Phthalates

PVC—often called vinyl—is commonly found in inexpensive binders, pencil cases, backpacks, desk mats, and other school supplies.

Because PVC is naturally rigid, manufacturers often add chemicals called phthalates to make it soft and flexible.

Studies have found that some PVC school supplies, particularly desk mats, contain some of the highest phthalate concentrations measured in children’s products. One of the most common phthalates, DEHP, is classified as a possible human carcinogen and is also recognized as an endocrine disruptor.

Children can be exposed through skin contact and routine hand-to-mouth activity.

When shopping, I generally choose PVC-free alternatives made from polypropylene, cardboard, recycled paper, silicone, or canvas whenever they’re available.

Bisphenols (BPA, BPS, and BPF)

Most people recognize BPA, but fewer realize that many BPA-free products simply replace it with similar chemicals like BPS or BPF.

These compounds are commonly found in certain hard plastics, reusable bottles, and even thermal paper.

BPA is a well-established endocrine disruptor, and emerging research suggests some replacement chemicals may behave similarly.

Rather than focusing on whether something is labeled “BPA-free,” I usually choose stainless steel, glass, or silicone whenever possible.

PFAS (“Forever Chemicals”)

PFAS are often added to products because they repel grease, stains, or water.

They’ve been found in some food packaging, stain-resistant fabrics, and certain lunch products.

These chemicals are extremely persistent—they don’t readily break down in the environment or the human body.

Research has linked PFAS exposure to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, immune dysfunction, and hormone disruption.

When possible, I look for PFAS-free food storage products and avoid grease-resistant packaging whenever practical.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

That “new plastic” smell many products have?

That’s often caused by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) being released into the air.

Some scented markers, correction fluids, adhesives, and art supplies may emit chemicals including formaldehyde, benzene, or toluene.

Studies measuring indoor air quality in schools have found that formaldehyde exposure may contribute to increased long-term cancer risk, particularly in poorly ventilated classrooms.

Whenever possible, I choose unscented, water-based art supplies and products carrying the ACMI AP certification.

Flame Retardants

Some foam products, nap mats, and backpacks may contain flame-retardant chemicals.

Certain organophosphate and brominated flame retardants have been associated with endocrine disruption, developmental concerns, and possible cancer risk.

Because these chemicals migrate into household dust, they can be inhaled or ingested over time.

Natural materials like cotton or untreated wool are often good alternatives when available.

Triclosan

Although triclosan was removed from consumer hand soaps by the FDA in 2016, it can still appear in some antibacterial products.

Triclosan has been associated with disruption of thyroid and reproductive hormones.

For everyday use, a simple fragrance-free alcohol-based hand sanitizer (containing at least 60% alcohol) is generally all that’s needed.

Fragrance

“Fragrance” sounds simple.

In reality, it can represent dozens—or even hundreds—of undisclosed ingredients.

Some fragrance mixtures may include phthalates, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, synthetic musks, and other compounds associated with hormone disruption or skin sensitization.

Whenever I can, I choose fragrance-free products for my family.

The Swaps I Personally Look For

When shopping for school supplies, these are the upgrades I tend to prioritize:

• PVC-free binders and folders instead of vinyl.

• Stainless steel water bottles instead of plastic.

• Stainless steel or glass lunch containers rather than plastic food storage.

• Silicone, cotton canvas, or recycled fabric pencil cases.

• Unscented, water-based markers and glue.

• Natural rubber erasers and wood or metal rulers.

• Fragrance-free alcohol-based hand sanitizer.

• Organic cotton or untreated nap mats when needed.

These swaps don’t have to happen all at once.

Even replacing one or two products each school year gradually reduces your family’s overall exposure.

A Few Simple Habits That Help

Beyond the products themselves, a few everyday habits can make a difference.

If a new item has a strong plastic smell, let it air out before using it.

Wash hands before eating, especially after handling school supplies.

Skip scented products whenever possible.

Read labels carefully for terms like PVC-free, phthalate-free, and PFAS-free.

And remember that simple materials—stainless steel, glass, silicone, wood, natural rubber, and organic cotton—are often the easiest choices.

The Bottom Line

No single binder, backpack, or lunch container is going to determine your child’s future health.

But exposure rarely comes from one product.

It comes from hundreds of small exposures repeated every day over many years.

That’s why I focus on reducing what I can, without chasing perfection.

Choosing safer school supplies is one small, practical step that can lower unnecessary chemical exposure while still allowing kids to simply enjoy being kids.

Sometimes the biggest health decisions aren’t dramatic.

They’re the quiet choices we make every day.

I know finding these products can be the hardest part, so I put all of my favorite back-to-school swaps in one place—from PVC-free binders and pencil cases to stainless steel lunch essentials and fragrance-free options.

You can find the full list here:

AMAZON

*affiliate link

Most of us don’t think twice about it.

But a growing body of scientific research suggests this everyday habit may be exposing us to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and microplastics in ways we’re only beginning to understand.

As an oncology provider, I spend a lot of time thinking about the small, repeated exposures that happen over decades. While no single exposure is likely to explain why someone develops cancer, the cumulative effect of our environment is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

What Happens When Hot Water Meets Plastic?

Plastic is not the inert material most consumers assume it to be.

Plastics are complex chemical mixtures containing not only the base polymer but also dozens to hundreds of additives—including plasticizers, stabilizers, UV filters, flame retardants, and lubricants—many of which can migrate out of the material and into whatever food or liquid is in contact with it.

Temperature is one of the most powerful drivers of this chemical migration.

A 2025 simulation study published in Scientific Reports found that polypropylene (PP) cups and containers released no detectable endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) at refrigerator temperatures (4–10°C). But at temperatures between 40°C and 100°C, those same containers released measurable quantities of DEHP, DBP, BBP, bisphenol A (BPA), and nonylphenol, with DEHP concentrations reaching more than 1,600 ng/L at boiling temperature.

The message was clear: the hotter the liquid, the more chemicals leach out.

This isn’t limited to chemical additives.

A 2022 study published in Science of the Total Environment demonstrated that soaking disposable plastic materials in hot water (100°C) released more than one million submicron and microplastic particles per milliliter after just 60 minutes, along with organic chemicals and heavy metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.

Coffee Makers and Coffee Pods: A Specific Concern

Coffee preparation is a particularly relevant exposure because it combines several factors known to maximize chemical migration: high brewing temperatures (typically 90–96°C), acidity (coffee has a pH of approximately 4.5–5.0), and prolonged contact between hot liquid and plastic components.

A comprehensive 2024 review published in Chemosphere found that the migration rate of endocrine-disrupting chemicals from food-contact materials into beverages increases with acidity, temperature, and storage time—all conditions present during coffee brewing. The review also confirmed that hormone-like compounds have been found to migrate from coffee preparation components.

Single-serve coffee capsules have also come under increasing scrutiny.

A 2022 study published in Food Chemistry detected phthalic acid esters—including DBP, DEHA, and DEHP—in coffee prepared from capsules, with concentrations varying depending on the capsule material.

A 2025 cross-sectional study evaluating endocrine-disrupting chemicals in packaged coffee found that DEHP, DnBP, and BPF concentrations were significantly higher after coffee preparation in a traditional coffee maker than in the raw coffee powder itself, suggesting that the brewing process contributes additional chemical contamination.

Researchers are now beginning to measure microplastics in beverages as well.

A 2025 UK market study found that hot coffee contained an average of 43 microplastic particles per liter, while hot tea contained even more—approximately 60 particles per liter. Hot beverages consistently contained significantly higher concentrations of microplastics than cold beverages, with polypropylene identified as the most abundant polymer.

The Chemicals of Concern

The chemicals leaching from plastics into hot beverages fall into several categories.

Bisphenol A (BPA): Used in polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resin linings, BPA is structurally similar to estrogen and is classified as an endocrine-disrupting chemical. It has been detected in more than 90% of the general population and has been shown in laboratory studies to promote cellular proliferation, migration, and epigenetic reprogramming.

Phthalates: A family of plasticizers that includes DEHP, DBP, and BBP, phthalates are among the most commonly detected contaminants in beverages exposed to plastic. DEHP, the phthalate released in the greatest quantity at higher temperatures, has demonstrated some of the highest carcinogenic risk values in global exposure assessments.

Nonylphenol: An alkylphenol used as a surfactant and stabilizer in plastics, nonylphenol also has estrogenic activity and has been detected in hot beverages prepared in plastic containers.

Microplastics and nanoplastics: Beyond the chemical additives, the plastic itself fragments into microscopic particles that are ingested with the beverage. These particles can carry adsorbed chemicals and may also trigger biological responses independently.

Connecting the Dots to Cancer

The relationship between these plastic-derived chemicals and cancer is an area of active and rapidly evolving research. The evidence spans multiple levels—from laboratory studies and molecular mechanisms to epidemiologic associations—but it’s important to distinguish between what we know and what we’re still learning.

The mechanistic evidence is compelling.

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that plastic-derived endocrine-disrupting chemicals, particularly phthalates and BPA, can activate estrogen receptor signaling, promote epithelial-mesenchymal transition (a hallmark of cancer metastasis), activate oncogenic pathways, promote cancer stem cell activity, and contribute to therapy resistance.

A 2022 review published in Chemosphere found that, in human cells, plastic-related endocrine-disrupting chemicals reduce E-cadherin (an epithelial marker) while increasing N-cadherin and matrix metalloproteinases—molecular changes that are well recognized as hallmarks of tumor invasion and metastasis.

Breast cancer has received some of the greatest research attention.

A 2025 review published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety highlighted growing evidence linking phthalate exposure to the initiation, progression, and metastasis of breast cancer through estrogen receptor signaling and activation of oncogenic pathways. Since hereditary factors account for only 5–10% of breast cancer cases, environmental exposures—including endocrine-disrupting chemicals—are receiving increasing scientific attention.

Prostate cancer has also been linked to these exposures.

A 2024 case-control study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials found that higher urinary BPA concentrations were associated with a tenfold increased risk of prostate cancer (OR = 10.02), while higher DEHP exposure was associated with a 48-fold increased risk (OR = 48.26).

Researchers have also reported significantly elevated serum BPA levels in patients with reproductive system cancers compared with healthy controls in a 2025 cross-sectional study, suggesting a potential association with estrogen-dependent malignancies.

Microplastics themselves are now being investigated as potential carcinogenic agents.

A 2024 rapid systematic review published in Environmental Science & Technology concluded that microplastic exposure is “suspected” to negatively affect reproductive, digestive, and respiratory health, with a suggested link to colon and lung cancer. Proposed mechanisms include chronic inflammation, generation of reactive oxygen species, disruption of cell-cycle regulation, endocrine mimicry, and other biological pathways known to contribute to carcinogenesis.

What We Still Don’t Know

It’s equally important to acknowledge the limitations of the current evidence.

A comprehensive 2026 critical review of the epidemiologic literature on BPA and cancer, published in Environmental Health, concluded that the available evidence was “inadequate to evaluate the carcinogenicity of BPA” in humans. The authors cited several reasons for this conclusion, including challenges with accurately measuring long-term exposure, a limited number of prospective studies, and inconsistent findings across different cancer types.

Importantly, the review also emphasized that inadequate evidence does not rule out potential carcinogenicity. Rather, it highlights the need for larger, better-designed prospective studies capable of answering the question more definitively.

Similarly, a 2021 meta-analysis evaluating BPA, phthalates, and breast cancer found no statistically significant association for most individual compounds, while also emphasizing the urgent need for higher-quality research.

This distinction matters.

One of the biggest misconceptions I see is the idea that a lack of definitive human proof means there’s nothing to worry about. That’s not how science works.

Many environmental exposures are studied for decades before we fully understand their long-term effects. Waiting for absolute certainty isn’t always the best public health strategy—especially when the exposure is widespread, the biologic mechanisms are plausible, and reducing that exposure is relatively simple.

The Regulatory Gap

Despite the growing body of evidence, regulatory frameworks have struggled to keep pace.

A 2023 global risk assessment published in Environment International concluded that regulations surrounding BPA and phthalates have not kept up with mounting evidence that these chemicals may have biologic effects even at low-dose exposure.

The World Health Organization has also called for continued assessment of microplastic pollution and its potential impact on human health, yet no country has established regulatory limits for microplastics in food or beverages.

Perhaps one of the most striking findings comes from a 2021 study published in Environmental Science & Technology.

Researchers evaluated chemicals migrating from 24 everyday plastic products and detected anywhere from 17 to 8,681 different chemical features leaching from those materials.

Only about 8% of those chemicals could actually be identified.

In other words, the vast majority of chemicals migrating from common plastic food-contact materials remain largely unknown, uncharacterized, and unregulated.

That’s an important point.

When we talk about plastics, we’re often focused on BPA or phthalates because they’re the chemicals we’ve studied the most. In reality, they represent only a small fraction of the compounds we’re exposed to, and many of the others haven’t been adequately evaluated for long-term human health effects.

What Can Consumers Do?

One of the questions I get asked most is, “What do you actually do in your own home?”

The truth is, I don’t believe cancer prevention is about eliminating every possible exposure. That’s neither realistic nor supported by the evidence.

Instead, I focus on reducing unnecessary exposures when the change is relatively simple and doesn’t meaningfully impact my quality of life.

For me, reducing the amount of hot food and beverages that come into contact with plastic is one of those changes.

Here are a few practical ways to lower your exposure:

• Choose glass, stainless steel, or ceramic for brewing and serving coffee whenever possible. Unlike plastic, these materials don’t contribute microplastics or plastic-derived chemicals to your beverage.

• Avoid reheating beverages in plastic containers. Microwave heating significantly increases both chemical migration and microplastic release.

• Replace old, worn plastic components when possible. As plastics age, scratch, and degrade, they tend to release more particles, although even new plastics can leach chemicals under certain conditions.

• Reduce your use of single-serve plastic coffee pods. Consider reusable stainless steel options, aluminum capsules, compostable alternatives, or traditional brewing methods that minimize plastic contact.

• Skip disposable plastic cups for hot beverages. Bringing a ceramic or stainless steel travel mug is one of the simplest ways to reduce unnecessary exposure.

The Coffee Maker I Use

After spending years reviewing the literature on endocrine-disrupting chemicals, I started looking for an automatic coffee maker that didn’t run near-boiling water through plastic.

I was honestly surprised by how difficult they were to find.

Most coffee makers—even expensive ones—still allow hot water to travel through plastic reservoirs, tubing, or internal components before it reaches your cup.

After quite a bit of research, I landed on the Simply Good Coffee Brewer, one of the few automatic coffee makers designed with a plastic-free brew path. The brewing water travels through stainless steel, borosilicate glass, and medical-grade silicone rather than traditional plastic components.

I’ll include a link below for anyone who’s interested.

My Brewer Link!

(This is an affiliate link, which means I may earn a small commission if you choose to purchase through it.)

I’m not sharing this because I believe one cup of coffee brewed in plastic causes cancer.

That’s not what the evidence says.

I’m sharing it because cancer prevention is rarely about one dramatic exposure.

It’s about reducing thousands of small, repeated exposures over decades whenever doing so is practical.

If I’m already making coffee every morning, choosing a brewer that minimizes unnecessary plastic exposure feels like a reasonable decision based on the evidence we have today.

The Bottom Line

The intersection of hot liquids and plastic is no longer a theoretical concern. It is a measurable, well-documented source of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and microplastics.

Do we have definitive proof that your coffee maker causes cancer?

No.

But that’s also the wrong question.

The better question is this:

When a simple change can reduce exposure to chemicals with biologically plausible mechanisms for harm, why wouldn’t we make that change?

As an oncology provider, I rarely get to identify the one exposure that contributed to someone’s cancer.

Cancer develops over years—often decades—as genetics, lifestyle, inflammation, hormones, environmental exposures, and chance all interact.

That’s why I don’t believe prevention is about perfection.

It’s about paying attention to the evidence as it evolves and making thoughtful decisions where we can.

The research consistently shows that hot liquids increase the migration of endocrine-disrupting chemicals and microplastics from plastic.

The research linking those exposures directly to cancer in humans is still evolving.

Both of those statements can be true at the same time.

For me, that’s enough to make a few simple changes.

I still drink coffee every morning.

I just prefer that what’s brewing inside my coffee maker is coffee—not plastic.

“It must be genetic.”

As an oncology provider, I hear it all the time.

Some cancers absolutely are hereditary. But somewhere along the way, we started believing that cancer is mostly written into our DNA—that if it “runs in the family,” there’…

Read more

The good news? We now have nearly two decades of real-world data and hundreds of millions of dose…

Read more

Children aren’t just “…

Read more

Before trying to increase your ferritin, it’s important to understand why it’s low in the first place.

Low ferritin isn’t a diagnosis—it’s a clue. Heavy menstrual bleeding, low dietary iron intake, blood donation, digestive conditions that reduce iron absorption, or gastrointestinal blood loss are just a few of th…

Read more

If you’ve searched “soy and cancer” online, you’ve probably found two completely opposite answers.

One side says soy feeds estrogen-positive breast cancer because it contains plant estrogens.

The other says soy may actually reduce the risk of developing cancer and improve survival after a breast cancer diagnosis.

So which is correct?

The answer lies in unde…

Read more

Every morning, millions of people brew coffee without giving the machine a second thought.

I used to be one of them.

But after spending more than a decade working in oncology, I’ve become much more intentional about reducing unnecessary environmental exposures—especially when there is little downside to making a safer choice.

One of those choices is avoidi…

Read more

As their popularity has grown, so has interest in another important question:

Could these medications also lower cancer risk?

The answer, based on current r…

Read more

Green tea comes from the same plant as black tea (Camellia sinensis), but there’s one important difference: the leaves aren’t fermented.

That simple processing change preserves much higher levels of natural plant compounds called catechins—powerful antioxidants that have become one of the most studied dietary compounds in c…

Read more

When people think about reducing their cancer risk, they often ask me the same question:

“What foods should I be eating?”

After more than a decade in oncology, I’ve learned that people are looking for certainty. They want to know if there’s a single food they can add to their diet that will prevent cancer.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.

There is n…

Read more

One of the most common things I see women overlook isn’t their mammogram—it’s the line buried in the report that says “heterogeneously dense” or “extremely dense.”

As an oncology provider, this is something I encourage every woman to understand.

Breast density doesn’t mean something is wrong. It doesn’t mean you have cancer. But it does change how we thin…

Read more