7 ms·

How talc causes cancer?

by baybal2 5y ago

daniel_reetz 5y ago
Talc is often contaminated with asbestos, which is a carcinogen.
- ILMostro7 5y ago
  Assuming that this got down-voted because it says "contaminated", whereas the other posts here suggest that it's often used intentionally--or at least with indifference--as an ingredient.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    No. Raw mined talc is processed to remove asbestos when used to baby powder. It is exceptionally unlikely that a large company would be explicitly aware of that and not modify their process (although not completely unprecedented).
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    It is downvoted because both statements are coming from a place of ignorance. Asbestos is neither a common contaminant or intentional additive. There have been disputed allegations that contamination could have occurred and resulted in cancer.
    - ILMostro7 5y ago
      Although my comment came from admitted ignorance, it was seeking clarification; not merely proclaiming an incorrect statement. Ultimately, it contributed to the discourse.
      - daniel_reetz 5y ago
        I was downvoted incorrectly. I sourced my info from a team working on talc litigation. 686 of 1032 tests produced in litigation revealed the presence of asbestos in talcs used in cosmetics from 1948 to 2017. That's "often". Asbestos is a carcinogen, and it often contaminates talcs. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784763/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784763/
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
moltar 5y ago
talc-based products contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer
- dekhn 5y ago
  I don't think anybody demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the vended product was the cause of ovarian cancer in the plaintiffs.
  - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
    That's not the criteria required for a civil suit. That's the criteria for a criminal case, which is prosecuted by the DA.
  - afthonos 5y ago
    Since none of this is about criminal proceedings in the US, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a meaningless (quite literally; what do you mean?) standard.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      I know what the various standards are for cases but that's not the point. In this case, "preponderance of evidence". Let's turn what you said around. In a civil case, a jury can find a defendent guilty of something, but with inadequate evidence. This can lead to enormous fines, and potentially even make a large company go bankrupt. One imagines that if you're going to find somebody guilty, they actually have to be guilty. How does that look? Scientific studies. And scientific studies don't exist that show that people who consumed J*J talc got cancer at elevated rates with a significance level that meets any judicial standard. So basically, what you are saying (which is true, and is exactly what bothers me) is that court cases can find a defendent guilty using a lack of scientific evidence, as long as the jury believes what was shown to them is a preponderance. That could just be erin brockovich walking around in court saying hexavalent chromium causes cancer (again, not enough data to conclude this). here's the CA case. https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159609.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159609.PDF """ While none of this is disputed, whether asbestos was present in JBP during the six-decade exposure period is a matter of sharp dispute. As further explained below, the trial court ruled that Dr. Compton’s and Dr. Fitzgerald’s declarations, to the extent they infer the presence of asbestos in milled, finished talcum powder from nothing more than positive tests for asbestos in raw talc ore used to manufacture it, are legally insufficient to create a triable issue of fact under applicable principles of causation
slobotron 5y ago
Presumably when inhaled, since the lawsuit talks about talc containing asbestos.
- aaronchall 5y ago
  Asbestos is an extremely stable mineral fiber and sharp like glass. If you get it on your skin it may penetrate but it will eventually probably slough off. If it gets in your lungs, it has nowhere to go and can continue damaging tissue for the rest of your life. Similarly, if it gets inside your body through other routes, it has nowhere to go. The lawsuit is about the product being marketed for feminine hygiene. Presumably if women put it on their privates every day, and it contains asbestos fibers, they will eventually have enough asbestos migrate internally to cause cancer, for example, in their ovaries - just like asbestos causes lung cancer when inhaled.
hedora 5y ago
In addition to often containing asbestos, pure talc can cause cancer by getting stuck where it shouldn't and causing chronic irritation, etc. The most common issue is ovarian cancer, and talc used to be widely marketed for feminine hygiene.
- tedivm 5y ago
  It's still used by parents in diapers, despite that being a huge cancer risk.
  - killjoywashere 5y ago
    As a father, and as a pathologist who has seen talc in ovarian cancers (under the microscope it is visible with polarizers), talc should be taken off the shelves. It's used on babies but also young women use it trying to cope with their fears of odor and moisture (whether or not there is an odor or moisture, let alone the conversation of whether those concerns themselves were manufactured). The ads are like tobacco ads: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-marketing/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona....
mateo1 5y ago
If you inhale it or put it in your vagina. Talcum might contain asbestos fibers, caution must be taken for it to be practically asbestos-free and women should be warned, but starch is not a damn replacement for it.
- tedivm 5y ago
  To be clear, even without asbestos talcum powder can cause cancer in women. It also doesn't have to be put directly in a vagina- using it in diapers for children is enough to cause some to potentially migrate in. A study in New England linked the increased cancer risk to inflammation caused by the talcum powder itself.
hmottestad 5y ago
"Asbestos is also a naturally occurring silicate mineral, but with a different crystal structure. Both talc and asbestos are naturally occurring minerals that may be found in close proximity in the earth." https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/talc https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/talc

How talc causes cancer?

daniel_reetz 5y ago

Talc is often contaminated with asbestos, which is a carcinogen.

ILMostro7 5y ago
Assuming that this got down-voted because it says "contaminated", whereas the other posts here suggest that it's often used intentionally--or at least with indifference--as an ingredient.
- dekhn 5y ago
  No. Raw mined talc is processed to remove asbestos when used to baby powder. It is exceptionally unlikely that a large company would be explicitly aware of that and not modify their process (although not completely unprecedented).
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  It is downvoted because both statements are coming from a place of ignorance. Asbestos is neither a common contaminant or intentional additive. There have been disputed allegations that contamination could have occurred and resulted in cancer.
  - ILMostro7 5y ago
    Although my comment came from admitted ignorance, it was seeking clarification; not merely proclaiming an incorrect statement. Ultimately, it contributed to the discourse.
    - daniel_reetz 5y ago
      I was downvoted incorrectly. I sourced my info from a team working on talc litigation. 686 of 1032 tests produced in litigation revealed the presence of asbestos in talcs used in cosmetics from 1948 to 2017. That's "often". Asbestos is a carcinogen, and it often contaminates talcs. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784763/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784763/

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

moltar 5y ago

talc-based products contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer

dekhn 5y ago
I don't think anybody demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the vended product was the cause of ovarian cancer in the plaintiffs.
- ThunderSizzle 5y ago
  That's not the criteria required for a civil suit. That's the criteria for a criminal case, which is prosecuted by the DA.
- afthonos 5y ago
  Since none of this is about criminal proceedings in the US, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a meaningless (quite literally; what do you mean?) standard.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    I know what the various standards are for cases but that's not the point. In this case, "preponderance of evidence". Let's turn what you said around. In a civil case, a jury can find a defendent guilty of something, but with inadequate evidence. This can lead to enormous fines, and potentially even make a large company go bankrupt. One imagines that if you're going to find somebody guilty, they actually have to be guilty. How does that look? Scientific studies. And scientific studies don't exist that show that people who consumed J*J talc got cancer at elevated rates with a significance level that meets any judicial standard. So basically, what you are saying (which is true, and is exactly what bothers me) is that court cases can find a defendent guilty using a lack of scientific evidence, as long as the jury believes what was shown to them is a preponderance. That could just be erin brockovich walking around in court saying hexavalent chromium causes cancer (again, not enough data to conclude this). here's the CA case. https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159609.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159609.PDF """ While none of this is disputed, whether asbestos was present in JBP during the six-decade exposure period is a matter of sharp dispute. As further explained below, the trial court ruled that Dr. Compton’s and Dr. Fitzgerald’s declarations, to the extent they infer the presence of asbestos in milled, finished talcum powder from nothing more than positive tests for asbestos in raw talc ore used to manufacture it, are legally insufficient to create a triable issue of fact under applicable principles of causation

slobotron 5y ago

Presumably when inhaled, since the lawsuit talks about talc containing asbestos.

aaronchall 5y ago
Asbestos is an extremely stable mineral fiber and sharp like glass. If you get it on your skin it may penetrate but it will eventually probably slough off. If it gets in your lungs, it has nowhere to go and can continue damaging tissue for the rest of your life. Similarly, if it gets inside your body through other routes, it has nowhere to go. The lawsuit is about the product being marketed for feminine hygiene. Presumably if women put it on their privates every day, and it contains asbestos fibers, they will eventually have enough asbestos migrate internally to cause cancer, for example, in their ovaries - just like asbestos causes lung cancer when inhaled.

hedora 5y ago

In addition to often containing asbestos, pure talc can cause cancer by getting stuck where it shouldn't and causing chronic irritation, etc. The most common issue is ovarian cancer, and talc used to be widely marketed for feminine hygiene.

tedivm 5y ago
It's still used by parents in diapers, despite that being a huge cancer risk.
- killjoywashere 5y ago
  As a father, and as a pathologist who has seen talc in ovarian cancers (under the microscope it is visible with polarizers), talc should be taken off the shelves. It's used on babies but also young women use it trying to cope with their fears of odor and moisture (whether or not there is an odor or moisture, let alone the conversation of whether those concerns themselves were manufactured). The ads are like tobacco ads: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-marketing/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona....

mateo1 5y ago

If you inhale it or put it in your vagina. Talcum might contain asbestos fibers, caution must be taken for it to be practically asbestos-free and women should be warned, but starch is not a damn replacement for it.

tedivm 5y ago
To be clear, even without asbestos talcum powder can cause cancer in women. It also doesn't have to be put directly in a vagina- using it in diapers for children is enough to cause some to potentially migrate in. A study in New England linked the increased cancer risk to inflammation caused by the talcum powder itself.

hmottestad 5y ago

"Asbestos is also a naturally occurring silicate mineral, but with a different crystal structure. Both talc and asbestos are naturally occurring minerals that may be found in close proximity in the earth." https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/talc https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/talc