3 ms·

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

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.