16 ms·

> Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders I asked this question in another post and did not get a reply. The

> Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders I asked this question in another post and did not get a reply. The US links sited state no evidence for talc causing cancer. A search of the NHS website also suggests no clear evidence [1]. Cancer Research (a respected UK charity) give a layman's summary (albeit focusing on ovarian cancer), stating no clear evidence and pointing out that there are far more serious risks to worry about [2]. Given the above, what is the hype about? Is this because the US is so insanely litigious? [1] https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?om=[{%22ety%22:[%22Information%20for%20the%20Public%22]}]&q=talcum+powder+cancer&sp=on https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?om=[{%22ety%22:[%22Inform... [2] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/cosmetics-and-toiletries https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc... EDIT: Down votes for asking a genuine question? Shame on you.

pkaye 5y ago
Talc comes from the ground so sometimes there are veins of asbestos deposits interspersed. I think they screen out those sections with high asbestos contents but it might not be perfect enough so there might be trace contents.
gameswithgo 5y ago
I see people started downvoting this, if you do, please explain why.
- dqv 5y ago
  You have got to give people more than 6 minutes to respond with a counter-argument, especially if you want a thoughtful answer.
- jacksnipe 5y ago
  Because J&J didn't get in trouble for talc being carcinogenic. J&J got in trouble for their talc being contaminated with asbestos, which is definitely carcinogenic.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> Is this because the US is so insanely litigious? Part of it is the weird setup of jury trials for civil cases, especially impactful in cases revolving around fairly technical, detail-oriented stuff like malpractice. Twelve randomly selected lay people may not be the best determiners of scientific evidence and in-depth statistical analysis.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  It's enough to put people to death, so it should be enough for everything else.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Twelve randomly selected lay people shouldn't get to decide to allow the State to kill people, either.
    - linuxftw 5y ago
      No argument here. I was just point out how trivial our systems are, and we still kill other humans based on the feelings other humans.
  - seiferteric 5y ago
    At least that requires unanimous decisions vs civil cases where it just has to be the majority.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      The legal standard for a conviction/judgement also changes, from "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal to "preponderance of the evidence" in civil- i.e. 99.9% certainty becomes 51% certainty.
  - nitwit005 5y ago
    Every criminal case involves more than a jury. The prosecutor has to decide to bring charges, judge has to accept the case, etc. Death penalty cases are more involved. I've sat through the automatic appeals that were part of California's process.
swiley 5y ago
>The US links sited state no evidence for causing cancer. It's benzine. It's a known carcinogen, no need for empiricism here.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  There are lots of known carcinogens for which the dosage is important. For example... sunlight. There's a reason the "this product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer" warning labels are a bit of a joke, after all.
  - nyolfen 5y ago
    benzene is not one of those
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      One molecule of benzene will guarantee a cancer case?
      - rkk3 5y ago
        You aren't guaranteed to die from being shot in the head either. However there are things which the medical community recognizes have no safe level of exposure. From the original article: "The toxicity of benzene in humans has been well established for over 120 years. The hematotoxicity of benzene has been described as early as 1897. A study from 1939 on benzene stated that “exposure over a long period of time to any concentration of benzene greater than zero is not safe,” which is a comment reiterated in a 2010 review of benzene research specifically stating “There is probably no safe level of exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk in a linear, if not supralinear, and additive fashion.”
        mr_toad 5y ago
        Yeah and you literally can’t breathe without risking being exposed to benzene. It’s in many adhesives, paints and petrol. If you want to adopt a zero tolerance policy for benzene then you’d need to ban petrol. Or stop breathing.
kvna 5y ago
It’s presumably not the talc but the asbestos found in the talc deposits that makes its way into the baby powder
mikeyouse 5y ago
We know that asbestos causes mesothelioma and that J&J baby powders contained asbestos since talc/asbestos are often found together in mines. J&J knew for decades that they were shipping asbestos to consumers in a powder form that's regularly inhaled -- they ghost-wrote and sponsored studies to deny that asbestos existed in their products and lied to the FDA in their disclosures.. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona... It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer.
- TheManInThePub 5y ago
  > It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer. So no evidence, just suspicion? I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have. EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
    It's not uncommon, science does not hold the ultimate truth of the world, it's a complex system based on intuition and beliefs and politics. Medical responsibility is highly complex and it does not follow the same rules (thankfully). In Europe, courts have been compensating people who got multiple sclerosis induced by the Hep B vaccine for decades even though there is no evidence of a causal link.
  - jacobwilliamroy 5y ago
    The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer, and multiple executives at Johnson and Johnson knew, and people who used it got cancer. I'm not sure how you could believe the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.
    - 5y ago
matco11 5y ago
Talc is a mineral in clay mined from underground deposits. It’s the softest mineral known to man and that makes it useful in a wide range of consumer and industrial products. Asbestos is also found underground, and veins of it can often be found in talc deposits, leading to a risk of cross-contamination, geologists say. Full article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/talc-asbestos-powder-facts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/talc-asbestos-po...
ineedasername 5y ago
It wasn't the talc, it was the asbestos located near the mines and showed up in samples taken over the years, which J&J also obscured and best and covered up at worst.
redis_mlc 5y ago
In the US, it's been reported that black women had/have a habit of using baby powder in their underwear to stay dry down there. The talcum/asbestos powder migrated into their reproductive organs, possibly causing cancer from the fibers irritating various linings and possibly causing cancer. I find that explanation pretty convincing.

pkaye 5y ago

Talc comes from the ground so sometimes there are veins of asbestos deposits interspersed. I think they screen out those sections with high asbestos contents but it might not be perfect enough so there might be trace contents.

gameswithgo 5y ago

I see people started downvoting this, if you do, please explain why.

dqv 5y ago
You have got to give people more than 6 minutes to respond with a counter-argument, especially if you want a thoughtful answer.
jacksnipe 5y ago
Because J&J didn't get in trouble for talc being carcinogenic. J&J got in trouble for their talc being contaminated with asbestos, which is definitely carcinogenic.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> Is this because the US is so insanely litigious? Part of it is the weird setup of jury trials for civil cases, especially impactful in cases revolving around fairly technical, detail-oriented stuff like malpractice. Twelve randomly selected lay people may not be the best determiners of scientific evidence and in-depth statistical analysis.

linuxftw 5y ago
It's enough to put people to death, so it should be enough for everything else.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Twelve randomly selected lay people shouldn't get to decide to allow the State to kill people, either.
  - linuxftw 5y ago
    No argument here. I was just point out how trivial our systems are, and we still kill other humans based on the feelings other humans.
- seiferteric 5y ago
  At least that requires unanimous decisions vs civil cases where it just has to be the majority.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    The legal standard for a conviction/judgement also changes, from "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal to "preponderance of the evidence" in civil- i.e. 99.9% certainty becomes 51% certainty.
- nitwit005 5y ago
  Every criminal case involves more than a jury. The prosecutor has to decide to bring charges, judge has to accept the case, etc. Death penalty cases are more involved. I've sat through the automatic appeals that were part of California's process.

swiley 5y ago

>The US links sited state no evidence for causing cancer. It's benzine. It's a known carcinogen, no need for empiricism here.

ceejayoz 5y ago
There are lots of known carcinogens for which the dosage is important. For example... sunlight. There's a reason the "this product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer" warning labels are a bit of a joke, after all.
- nyolfen 5y ago
  benzene is not one of those
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    One molecule of benzene will guarantee a cancer case?
    - rkk3 5y ago
      You aren't guaranteed to die from being shot in the head either. However there are things which the medical community recognizes have no safe level of exposure. From the original article: "The toxicity of benzene in humans has been well established for over 120 years. The hematotoxicity of benzene has been described as early as 1897. A study from 1939 on benzene stated that “exposure over a long period of time to any concentration of benzene greater than zero is not safe,” which is a comment reiterated in a 2010 review of benzene research specifically stating “There is probably no safe level of exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk in a linear, if not supralinear, and additive fashion.”
      - mr_toad 5y ago
        Yeah and you literally can’t breathe without risking being exposed to benzene. It’s in many adhesives, paints and petrol. If you want to adopt a zero tolerance policy for benzene then you’d need to ban petrol. Or stop breathing.

kvna 5y ago

It’s presumably not the talc but the asbestos found in the talc deposits that makes its way into the baby powder

mikeyouse 5y ago

We know that asbestos causes mesothelioma and that J&J baby powders contained asbestos since talc/asbestos are often found together in mines. J&J knew for decades that they were shipping asbestos to consumers in a powder form that's regularly inhaled -- they ghost-wrote and sponsored studies to deny that asbestos existed in their products and lied to the FDA in their disclosures.. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona... It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer.

TheManInThePub 5y ago
> It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer. So no evidence, just suspicion? I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have. EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?
- ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
  It's not uncommon, science does not hold the ultimate truth of the world, it's a complex system based on intuition and beliefs and politics. Medical responsibility is highly complex and it does not follow the same rules (thankfully). In Europe, courts have been compensating people who got multiple sclerosis induced by the Hep B vaccine for decades even though there is no evidence of a causal link.
- jacobwilliamroy 5y ago
  The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer, and multiple executives at Johnson and Johnson knew, and people who used it got cancer. I'm not sure how you could believe the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.
  - 5y ago

matco11 5y ago

Talc is a mineral in clay mined from underground deposits. It’s the softest mineral known to man and that makes it useful in a wide range of consumer and industrial products. Asbestos is also found underground, and veins of it can often be found in talc deposits, leading to a risk of cross-contamination, geologists say. Full article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/talc-asbestos-powder-facts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/talc-asbestos-po...

ineedasername 5y ago

It wasn't the talc, it was the asbestos located near the mines and showed up in samples taken over the years, which J&J also obscured and best and covered up at worst.

redis_mlc 5y ago

In the US, it's been reported that black women had/have a habit of using baby powder in their underwear to stay dry down there. The talcum/asbestos powder migrated into their reproductive organs, possibly causing cancer from the fibers irritating various linings and possibly causing cancer. I find that explanation pretty convincing.