5 ms·

Did they change the ingredients for the Talc? Because it is still on sale. From other brands as well.

by zerr 4y ago

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
Baby powder is usually corn starch now.
- orra 4y ago
  In the US! J&J Baby Powder in the UK is still talcum powder... Edit: I now see that'll be phased out, later this year https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-consumer-health-to-transition-global-baby-powder-portfolio-to-cornstarch https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-consumer-health-to-trans...
  - refurb 4y ago
    I’ve been stocking up. Just don't be stupid and inhale it (which is bad for you asbestos or not asbestos). Corn starch as a replacement sucks compared to talc.
- teknolog 4y ago
  Sort of makes you wonder if the corn lobby was funneling money to this lawsuit. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, but you never know.
  - starkd 4y ago
    Don't know if that is the case here, but that possibility cannot be discounted. It is a definite pattern for litigation attorneys. Studies can be easily manufactured.
    - f6v 4y ago
      > Studies can be easily manufactured. Studies can be replicated(or failed to do so) by a company the size of J&J.
  - f6v 4y ago
    > Sounds like a conspiracy theory, but you never know. When something “sounds” like it and you don’t have any evidence, it IS a conspiracy theory.
Jeema101 4y ago
I think the problem wasn't the talc itself, but that it was contaminated with asbestos in the process of mining the talc and turning it into talcum powder. So presumably it's been addressed through closer monitoring, but the article does say that they plan to phase out talcum powder worldwide and replace it with cornstarch powder. Edit: Apparently there are some studies which suggest talc itself could also be carcinogenic. I suppose this may be one reason why the issue is so confusing, because it's really 2 issues in one: a) whether talc that's sold is contaminated with asbestos, and b) whether talc itself is carcinogenic.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  And cornstarch is great for bacteria/fungus growth. You can't win.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    You can just not put those things in babies.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  > but that it was contaminated with asbestos in the process of mining the talc and turning it into talcum powder. Allegedly. There's really good evidence that asbestos was making its way into he product in the 1970s, but evidence starts to get really thin starting in the 1990s. This is a settlement after all, so I wouldn't call it the final word on the subject. I think " b) whether talc itself is carcinogenic." is a much more interesting question, but probably hard to answer at this point.
stametseater 4y ago
Talc is mined, not manufactured. They weren't adding asbestos to talc, they were mining and selling talc which was contaminated with asbestos because the asbestos and talc were coincident in the ground.

Did they change the ingredients for the Talc? Because it is still on sale. From other brands as well.

by zerr 4y ago

Did they change the ingredients for the Talc? Because it is still on sale. From other brands as well.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

Baby powder is usually corn starch now.

orra 4y ago
In the US! J&J Baby Powder in the UK is still talcum powder... Edit: I now see that'll be phased out, later this year https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-consumer-health-to-transition-global-baby-powder-portfolio-to-cornstarch https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-consumer-health-to-trans...
- refurb 4y ago
  I’ve been stocking up. Just don't be stupid and inhale it (which is bad for you asbestos or not asbestos). Corn starch as a replacement sucks compared to talc.
teknolog 4y ago
Sort of makes you wonder if the corn lobby was funneling money to this lawsuit. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, but you never know.
- starkd 4y ago
  Don't know if that is the case here, but that possibility cannot be discounted. It is a definite pattern for litigation attorneys. Studies can be easily manufactured.
  - f6v 4y ago
    > Studies can be easily manufactured. Studies can be replicated(or failed to do so) by a company the size of J&J.
- f6v 4y ago
  > Sounds like a conspiracy theory, but you never know. When something “sounds” like it and you don’t have any evidence, it IS a conspiracy theory.

Jeema101 4y ago

I think the problem wasn't the talc itself, but that it was contaminated with asbestos in the process of mining the talc and turning it into talcum powder. So presumably it's been addressed through closer monitoring, but the article does say that they plan to phase out talcum powder worldwide and replace it with cornstarch powder. Edit: Apparently there are some studies which suggest talc itself could also be carcinogenic. I suppose this may be one reason why the issue is so confusing, because it's really 2 issues in one: a) whether talc that's sold is contaminated with asbestos, and b) whether talc itself is carcinogenic.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
And cornstarch is great for bacteria/fungus growth. You can't win.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  You can just not put those things in babies.
ch4s3 4y ago
> but that it was contaminated with asbestos in the process of mining the talc and turning it into talcum powder. Allegedly. There's really good evidence that asbestos was making its way into he product in the 1970s, but evidence starts to get really thin starting in the 1990s. This is a settlement after all, so I wouldn't call it the final word on the subject. I think " b) whether talc itself is carcinogenic." is a much more interesting question, but probably hard to answer at this point.

stametseater 4y ago

Talc is mined, not manufactured. They weren't adding asbestos to talc, they were mining and selling talc which was contaminated with asbestos because the asbestos and talc were coincident in the ground.