3 ms·

Talc deposits are often found around asbestos ore. From what I can tell the issue is cross contamination rather than talcum powder itself being carcinogenic. h

Talc deposits are often found around asbestos ore. From what I can tell the issue is cross contamination rather than talcum powder itself being carcinogenic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Association_with_asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Association_with_asbestos

happytoexplain 2y ago
I'm not motivated to do real research (reading entire source papers/testimony), but every time I look into this, the info is really frustrating and unclear. There seems to be a lot of noise (on one side, corporate self-preservation; and on the other, overly un-objective anti-corporate sentiment). As far as I can tell, talc can be contaminated with asbestos, but you can test for this and use processes that avoid/remedy the contamination, which J&J ostensibly did - meanwhile, the cases against them seem statistically meaningless as described in all the articles. And then every time a scientific link to cancer is mentioned, it's never made clear if the link is significant, and whether the link is from mined talc that might be contaminated, pure talc, or the J&J product on the shelves which might be contaminated, only the latter two being meaningful. And regardless, J&J claims this link is junk science, and are confident enough to be suing to prove that, so I guess I look forward to seeing the result of that. The only case that seemed significant was that J&J was found to have covered up contamination, but they seem to continue to contest this and I can't find any details on what the evidence was. E.g. is J&J claiming it wasn't contaminated, or are they claiming it was, but not to dangerous levels even over decades of use? Very annoying.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > As far as I can tell, talc can be contaminated with asbestos, but you can test for this and use processes that avoid/remedy the contamination, which J&J ostensibly did They tested, found asbestos, then lied to the FDA saying that there wasn't any when there had been, tried to get the FDA to allow certain amounts of asbestos in their products, and when faced with lawsuits repeatedly obstructed efforts to get their internal documentation/communication on the subject. > meanwhile, the cases against them seem statistically meaningless as described in all the articles. That's a bizarre metric. How many people who got cancer would have detected it, realized that it was from baby powder, had the time, strength, and money (while fighting cancer) to get lawyers and go to court over it?
- whaleofatw2022 2y ago
  > The only case that seemed significant was that J&J was found to have covered up contamination, but they seem to continue to contest this and I can't find any details on what the evidence was. E.g. is J&J claiming it wasn't contaminated, or are they claiming it was, but not to dangerous levels even over decades of use? This article doesn't go into the details too deeply but however bad it was, sounds like it went on for a while... https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/johnson-johnson-knew-decades-asbestos-lurked-its-baby-powder-n948016 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/johnson-johnson-k...
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I don't believe this is accurate. There are concerns that talc can be contaminated with asbestos, but (a) asbestos was largely removed from talc for sale in the US in the mid 70s as your Wikipedia link points out (and additional info in the link below), (b) the concern with asbestos contamination is largely related to inhalation and lung cancer - I haven't even seen much in the form of hypotheses that it is a factor in ovarian cancer, and (c) given a and b the concern is largely with talc mining and the miners involved, not people who use talc-based baby powder. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talc...
- autoexec 2y ago
  > he concern with asbestos contamination is largely related to inhalation and lung cancer - I haven't even seen much in the form of hypotheses that it is a factor in ovarian cancer Someone above linked to this: Asbestos Exposure and Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-analysis (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2093791123000744 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209379112...) which concludes: "This meta-analysis provides evidence of a significant association between asbestos exposure and ovarian cancer mortality." You might not be aware of any hypotheses that asbestos is a factor in ovarian cancer, but it seems others have for a very long time. In 2017 Germany considered ovarian cancer caused by asbestos to be an occupational disease. A link between talc and ovarian cancer was suggested back in the 1960s. Talc, as something that causes cancer, has been being researched for a very very long time.

happytoexplain 2y ago

I'm not motivated to do real research (reading entire source papers/testimony), but every time I look into this, the info is really frustrating and unclear. There seems to be a lot of noise (on one side, corporate self-preservation; and on the other, overly un-objective anti-corporate sentiment). As far as I can tell, talc can be contaminated with asbestos, but you can test for this and use processes that avoid/remedy the contamination, which J&J ostensibly did - meanwhile, the cases against them seem statistically meaningless as described in all the articles. And then every time a scientific link to cancer is mentioned, it's never made clear if the link is significant, and whether the link is from mined talc that might be contaminated, pure talc, or the J&J product on the shelves which might be contaminated, only the latter two being meaningful. And regardless, J&J claims this link is junk science, and are confident enough to be suing to prove that, so I guess I look forward to seeing the result of that. The only case that seemed significant was that J&J was found to have covered up contamination, but they seem to continue to contest this and I can't find any details on what the evidence was. E.g. is J&J claiming it wasn't contaminated, or are they claiming it was, but not to dangerous levels even over decades of use? Very annoying.

autoexec 2y ago
> As far as I can tell, talc can be contaminated with asbestos, but you can test for this and use processes that avoid/remedy the contamination, which J&J ostensibly did They tested, found asbestos, then lied to the FDA saying that there wasn't any when there had been, tried to get the FDA to allow certain amounts of asbestos in their products, and when faced with lawsuits repeatedly obstructed efforts to get their internal documentation/communication on the subject. > meanwhile, the cases against them seem statistically meaningless as described in all the articles. That's a bizarre metric. How many people who got cancer would have detected it, realized that it was from baby powder, had the time, strength, and money (while fighting cancer) to get lawyers and go to court over it?
whaleofatw2022 2y ago
> The only case that seemed significant was that J&J was found to have covered up contamination, but they seem to continue to contest this and I can't find any details on what the evidence was. E.g. is J&J claiming it wasn't contaminated, or are they claiming it was, but not to dangerous levels even over decades of use? This article doesn't go into the details too deeply but however bad it was, sounds like it went on for a while... https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/johnson-johnson-knew-decades-asbestos-lurked-its-baby-powder-n948016 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/johnson-johnson-k...

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

I don't believe this is accurate. There are concerns that talc can be contaminated with asbestos, but (a) asbestos was largely removed from talc for sale in the US in the mid 70s as your Wikipedia link points out (and additional info in the link below), (b) the concern with asbestos contamination is largely related to inhalation and lung cancer - I haven't even seen much in the form of hypotheses that it is a factor in ovarian cancer, and (c) given a and b the concern is largely with talc mining and the miners involved, not people who use talc-based baby powder. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talc...

autoexec 2y ago
> he concern with asbestos contamination is largely related to inhalation and lung cancer - I haven't even seen much in the form of hypotheses that it is a factor in ovarian cancer Someone above linked to this: Asbestos Exposure and Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-analysis (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2093791123000744 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209379112...) which concludes: "This meta-analysis provides evidence of a significant association between asbestos exposure and ovarian cancer mortality." You might not be aware of any hypotheses that asbestos is a factor in ovarian cancer, but it seems others have for a very long time. In 2017 Germany considered ovarian cancer caused by asbestos to be an occupational disease. A link between talc and ovarian cancer was suggested back in the 1960s. Talc, as something that causes cancer, has been being researched for a very very long time.