The Journal of Female Health Sciences: JFH.TD.13.098
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS REVEALS MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN
THE BREAST SIZE OF WOMEN IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES
– U.S. women have a significantly larger mean breast volume than women born in other countries
John D. L. Anderson – Curator of Human Anatomy, New Delhi School of Applied Sciences
Susan C. Chandler – Senior Lecturer, Aesthetic Surgery, Braga Medical School
Megan A. B. Mason – Senior Researcher, Department of Mathematical Statistics, UISS Chennan B. Khan
– Professor, Diagnostic Technology, New Delhi School of Applied Sciences Jennifer E. Lindsay –
Associate Director, ND Garment Ltd
Richard M. Sandler – Professor of Radiology, Camiry University
Liu G. Wong – President Emerita of Atape Institute of Human Anatomy
In recent years the breast size (i.e., bra cup size and bra band size) of women has been studied in a number of national and regional research projects. Most of the studies have been conducted by universities in cooperation with companies within the lingerie industry and other commercial stakeholders. However, the local studies have not been able to provide internationally comparable results regarding the factual breast size (i.e., breast volume or breast tissue volume) in different countries.
Increasing knowledge of the breast size variation of women from different countries is needed as a guideline for example for the product development and targeting of marketing actions of clothing industry and cosmetic surgery providers.
Recently a group of scientists made a thorough international data analysis with statistically reliable results. The breast size data of women born in 108 countries were converted to a comparable format and analyzed. The study analysis defined in a scientific way the average breast size of 28 – 30-year-old women broken down by country of birth. The analysis was based on accurately measured breast tissue volume of the women in the material. In order to facilitate the practical applicability of the study results the outcome of the final analysis was also expressed as bra cup sizes using the EU bra size standard as a reference.
The study analysis revealed that there is a considerable variation in the breast tissue volume, i.e., the factual bra cup size, of women depending on their country of birth.
For example, women born in the U.S.A have by far larger breasts than women in any other country, while women born in Africa and Asia, particularly in the East Asian countries, have the smallest breast volumes.
The United States Senate voted 79-20 as part of their 2014 budget to repeal part of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that would have imposed a tax on medical-device sales, including breast and other implants. Repeal of the proposed medical device tax was bipartisan. Many Senators realize this provision would cost jobs at medical device producers. Additionally, the tax would increase cost of care and decrease availability of care, effects contrary to the intended purpose of the Affordable Care Act.
Revenue from the medical-device tax would have paid for part of the signature achievement of President Obama’s first term. Repeal of the tax does not become law because as part of a tax and spend 2014 budget bill passed by the Democrat controlled Senate, it stands no chance of passing the Republican controlled House of Representatives. Still, the symbolic vote is a victory for patients, physicians, and medical-device makers because it signifies overwhelming opposition to adverse impact of the medical-device tax. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) said she opposed the tax, despite its connection to the health-care law. “It still isn’t right because it creates too much of a burden,” Sen. Klobuchar said, asserting the health-care overhaul won’t generate enough new customers to offset the costs for medical-device companies.
For both cosmetic implants and for breast reconstruction after mastectomy, the device tax would have increased costs, which are already among the highest worldwide due to the stifling regulatory and taxation environment in which American surgeons operate, and in which American patients are cared for. Facial and other body implants would also have been subject to additional taxation. Each and every regulatory board, agency, and committee that mandates accredited providers’ participation charges for that privilege. For the federal government to obligate cosmetic patients to pay for others’ medical care amounts to extortion, and to further abridgement of American liberty. The tax is contrary to constitutional principles, and for that reason alone, the measure should have been justly repealed.
Steve Laverson, MD