-
Safety of Talc in cosmetics.
Hi all,
I read the news this morning about headlines below.
J&J must pay $72 million for cancer death linked to talcum powder: lawyers
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-verdict-idUSKCN0VW20A
I am not familiar with US.Jury and I am not live in US.
So what will happen after this case?
Do we as cosmetics formulator should stop to use the talc in our cosmetic products?
P.S. I am so curious why they can proof that talc cause the ovarian cancer in this case. As far I know , there is so many factors can cause ovarian cancer.
Thank in advance for all opinions.
Attapol
-
9 Replies
-
Based from the news, J&J powder was used in the genital area, which the US jury who heard the case, used as correlation to ovarian cancer.
-
I don’t use talc in our products or sell it because I cannot be certain it is pure enough. Historically the risk from talc was because it could contain small amounts of asbestos. However this case links the use of talc to ovarian cancer directly and according to the article in the newspaper the jury appears to have been swayed by internal memos of Johnson & Johnson.
-
This ruling will be appealed and most likely overturned. It is completely junk science. If the ruling stands linking an ingredient to cancer well, all cosmetics are in trouble. Talc is natural so being natural won’t help. Anyone using talc in their line will be open to liability. And then I’m sure other ingredient suits will start to pile up parabens, DEA, propylene glycol, and anything else that a fear mongering group says is vaguely correlated with cancer.
You better have good insurance if you’re making cosmetics.Colin wrote a good piece on this subject. -
The reports I read said that there was proof that the Talc had caused inflammation to her ovaries which in turn caused Ovarian Cancer for that particular woman. But only a small portion of the damages are related to that — the majority (I think over 80%) were punitive because of Johnson & Johnson’s internal behaviors brought to light, such as memos discussing the concern but not making anyone aware, trying to get minorities to use them more because of said concerns, etc.
-
Better Call Saul . . .
-
@ Belassi haha
From CIR:As evidenced in this safety assessment, numerous studies
have been performed to investigate whether or not a causative relationship
exists between the cosmetic use of talc in the perineal area and ovarian
cancer. The Panel reviewed these studies thoroughly, and determined that they
do not support a causal link. The Panel stated that causation would depend on
the migration of talc from the perineum to the ovaries. There is no conclusive
explanation for the presence of talc in the ovaries reported in some studies.
However, the Panel agreed that there is no known physiological mechanism by
which talc can plausibly migrate from the perineum to the ovaries. Further, the
Panel noted that if typical perineal applications of talc increased the risk of
ovarian cancer, then it would be expected to increase the risks of uterine and,
especially, cervical cancer as well; the absence of reports of associations
between perineal talc use and either uterine or cervical cancer indicates that
perineal talc application does not cause ovarian cancer. Additional support for
this conclusion comes from, for example, studies demonstrating that the use of
talc-dusted condoms or diaphragms, which would clearly result in exposure close
to the cervical opening, was generally not associated with increased relative
risk estimates for ovarian cancer. -
Internal J&J memo produced in court:
In the trial, Fox’s attorneys introduced into evidence a September 1997 internal memo from a Johnson & Johnson medical consultant suggesting that “anybody who denies [the] risks” between “hygenic” talc use and ovarian cancer would be publicly perceived in the same light as those who denied a link between smoking cigarettes and cancer: “Denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.”IMO J&J have done a massively serious disservice to the industry. -
Medical consultants aren’t infallible so unless the “evidence to the contrary” was introduced at trial, his opinion of a risk is in stark contrast with the scientific consensus.
Log in to reply.
