Living is the greatest danger of all. It imposesgrave threats continuously.
My suggestion? Get used to it.
I just now saw NYT REPLIES for the first time --what a great idea! So I'll ask you directly what I just wondered in my comment: did Patricia Schmitz qualify as a claimant for compensation by the multi-billion dollar asbestos trust fund that was created to compensate mesothelioma victims? (I'm going to feel dumb if you addressed this and I missed it.)
What about the various baby/talc powders from other companies? I would imagine their sources are all the same. If I am wrong would someone out there correct me?
And point me to their sources of information?
1
This product is still in wide spread use in Pakistan and neighboring India. The company needs to voluntarily stop it's sale in Third World countries or are they going to do what tobacco has done i.e. blitz with more advertisement, specials, force and bribe local politicians to cover for the loss of profit in US.
I worked for J&J in the early 2000s and found them to be a stunningly cold and self-protective company. I could not be less surprised by these charges.
5
Why are people blaming this poor woman for not “knowing better” instead of Johnson and Johnson for knowingly selling a dangerous product? Why are we in a rush to show that we are so much “smarter” than others since we “avoided” her fate? How can we be so willing to tolerate corporate greed? Where is our compassion for our fellow human beings?
11
J&J Baby Powder is sourced from China. Remember the poisoned baby formula and toothpaste from China? Anything made in China is suspect and cannot be trusted. Anything that has materials sourced from China is suspect. If China has any part in the sourcing, manufacturing or production of a product or food, it is suspect and cannot be trusted.
China has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. How many more times do we have to experience safety issues, poisonings, theft, counterfeits, and quality issues with products made in China before the world stops doing business there?
5
@Misplaced Modifier
I think you're missing the point. J&J knew for decades that their talc-based powder was contaminated with asbestos but withheld that information and continued selling the powder. That the powder is sourced from China is irrelevant. What's relevant is that J&J chose to continue sourcing from China even though they knew that the powder had asbestos in it.
1
I stopped using J&J talc baby powder, and other talc body powders, in the early 80s. I'd used it daily for 5-10 years starting in college in humid NYC. (My mother also used it with all us kids.) I dimly recall talk about the possible presence of asbestos in talc products, but I abandoned the product after a personal experience.
I bought the largest plastic containers of the product. They cost approx. $1.99 at the time... I was a struggling artist and it was important to shop carefully. One morning the powder wouldn't sprinkle out of a new container of body powder. The container was heavy with product, so I popped off the sprinkle lid to investigate. Inside, I found a large coagulation of a fibrous substance. It was also white, and caused the powder to clump together, making it impossible to shake out of the lid. I pulled at the clump and a large gob of the stuff came out. It was like cotton batting and cobwebs, with long fibers that easily pulled apart, only much, MUCH finer and lighter than cotton or spun web. I'd never seen a substance like this before, nor have I since. I am experienced with crafts, sewing, clothing construction, upholstery, and all manner of materials that go into such projects. I had a very bad feeling. I discarded the mess and switched to the new cornstarch.
Last year, at age 58, I had my ovaries removed due to unexplainable enlargement. No malignancy found. In the course of pre-op testing, a large node was found in my right lung. It's being watched.
13
@Elena - Best wishes to you for good health. I've been there.
1
One of my dearest friends, a 54 year old middle class white woman, is dying in a horrific, painful and lengthy way from mesothelioma. She wasn't a miner, nor did she live in a home that was leaking asbestos. The only possible exposure she had was from talcum powder, most likely baby powder. Asbestos can be a contaminant of baby powder.
It is not okay for any company to withhold the possibility that its product may be unsafe, even if it is a small possibility. I feel like I am watching a slow murder take place. A murder that will go unpunished and the persons responsible unidentified. A murder motivated by greed. It is hard for my mind to grasp how such heartless decisions can be made - letting babies possibly be exposed to such a deadly substance. Babies.
And by the way, there are no effective treatments for mesothelioma. A horrifically painful surgery and experimental drugs. I can't say I don't wish every day that this disease gets visited upon those who made the heartless decision. I don't like that about myself but it seems to help my heartbroken self cope with losing my dear friend.
7
@KM Hello KM, I am so sorry for the loss of your friend. KM, I’m curious, how did your friend apply the powder ?
Thank you, Ms Harris
2
@Harris Tornblad , really, that’s what I want to know. How does asbestos migrate from labia major to minor, up through the vagina, into the uterus, through the Fallopian tubes, across the gap, and land in the ovaries? Has that been explained in all the prosecutions?
@David J Can't possibly have been explained, because it doesn't happen.
I am so thankful that The NY Times and The Weekly has exposed the truth about what J&J has done to so many of us. My life too was ruined by two metal-on-metal J&J (DePuy Synthes) hip replacement devices that I got at age 39, while at the peak of my career as a news anchor for Disney/ABC in Raleigh. I did horribly after surgery and just had questions, since so many people did so well after getting their hips replaced. I started investigating, which brought me to Dallas, Texas and the final two of the first few bellwether trials related to 11,000 people who had filed suit against J&J, related to my hip, the DePuy Pinnacle hip with Ultamet (cobalt-chromium alloy) liner. What I learned by attending trial was absolutely mind blowing. The fraud, the deception, the lies, the faked, covertly-funded (by J&J) "science" this company used to sell more of this hip, their "Billion Dollar Baby"... it was shocking and beyond disgusting. This company is not what it claims to be. I'm thankful you are covering the truth. Please reach out if you'd like to hear more about the fraud/deception used to sell J&J's DePuy Pinnacle hip. A lot of the fraud about which I learned in court has yet to be reported. This company is intentionally deceiving the world and defrauding investors. Thousands of us have seen our lives destroyed in J&J's wake. It's awful. I pray this company changes its ways and that the lies are exposed more fully than they have been in recent years. This is so wrong.
8
Gold Bond Powder has talc. I don’t breathe it or put it near any orifice. Cornstarch gives me a bacterial or yeast irritation. Talc does not. As for asbestos contamination, that’s a new one for me.
2
There are two types of asbestos - serpertine and amphiboles.
The asbestos in serpentine class is called chysotile and this has a completely different structure to the types of asbestos in the amphibole class.
This is important as the carcinogenicity in the lung of the various amphiboles is rated as between 50 to 500 x more potent that chrysotile.
So when discussing "asbestos" it is important to know which asbestos is involved as low level chrysotile exposure is not considered very toxic due to it dissolving in the lungs over a period of months. Amphiboles don't dissolve.
5
@Lawrie Knight You are way out of line. This thread is no place for scientific analysis. Only emotional sob stories are allowed.
Why do prescription drugs often use talc as a filler (non-active ingredient)? Why not use cornstarch or something non-toxic?
Why does Big Pharma get a pass on allowing our actual ingestion of a proven carcinogen?!?
6
Talc has been used for decades as a filler in and dusted upon, of all things, chewing gum.
1
I found an advertisement for Johnson's baby powder from the 1930s on eBay. I took an image of it. In that advertisement the company pointed out that they used the"softest Italian flake talc" and that you could run it between your fingers and it would not feel gritty. They claimed that the talc did not have any of the 'sharp, needle like particles' contained in other baby powders.
There are many other bottles of vintage Johnson baby powder for sale on eBay, from different years. A selection of those will give you an idea if the formulation changed.
1
@Analyst:
What about the unwitting (to many) inclusion of talc in so many drugs, both OTC and prescription? What happens when talc is ingested directly into our digestive tract?
6
How does a plaintiff prove they used baby powder , time stamped videos?
4
If Johnson and Johnson is innocent and believes their product is harmless, then they should have no concerns about pulling THEIR product off random store shelves and using it on themselves and their own children. I would like to know how many of Johnson and Johnsons board members use the product it manufactures and distributes to consumers.
5
When I was pregnant in 1985, I knew to say "no talc" because it could cause cancer in females. That baby turned 33 this year. Why is this an issue I should worry about with my grandchildren too??
7
It's about the talc, contaminated with asbestos, though in small amounts, yet, nobody, the Times included has mentioned other talc based products such as foot powder both with and without antifungal ingredients. WHY? It's not only ovarian and uterine cancer but lung cancer and mesothelioma from inhalation. so how about it NY Times do a story on this please, it affects all of us, that is, those of us who need to use foot powder to those babies who have powder to applied to their bottoms.
1
There female genital tract allows particle migration into the interior of the body. The skin of the foot does not. As for men, it could happen. If there was prefer migration there should be (in my opinion), granulomas with talc as well. If there are granulomas, then anestrus or not, it's possible that the talc caused carcinomas.
2
@Analyst - a person still inhales the dust particles, that is a given . So mesothelioma and lung cancer are very possible and have been litigated already from talcum powder product usage. So you missed my point completely. I , for the last 2 years have been using a dust mask before i apply any antifungal powder or powder spray. Prior to doing so, i would cough heavily at night with tiny particles coming out of my throat, since then... no problems.
@lou andrews Hello Lou, This has been very informative. We don’t use any talc or powder do had no idea the dust could get into the lungs . Instead try using vinegar with the “mother “.
Asbestos in baby powder, complicit in the opioid crisis, illegal marketing of Risperdal...and the list goes on and on. Gorsky has turned a once great company into criminal enterprise, But so long as the stock price is solid, he’ll be revered by the board and receive his millions. Capitalism at its worst.
7
Babies should not inhale cornstarch or any other particulate matter.
7
Yes, concerns about asbestos in baby powder date back to... in my life, 1971. As an undergraduate in Film/TV at UCLA, i started to focus on public affairs news shows. I produced a report about this very topic. Through a friend who was a senior pharmacologist at Kaiser in Hollywood, i met a researcher there who was studying this problem.
My News teacher worked for CBS-news and was so impressed with the story that he asked if he could bring it to the station. I replied that i was graduating in June, and if he took the story, would he introduce me there? or give me public credit? He declined. i withheld the story.
Pamela Rogow
5
In the late 60’s, when my nephew was born, we read that France had banned talc in baby powder. And not to shake any baby powder all over, they might breathe it. It’s a relief to know that my personal after bath choice of cornstarch powder has been a safe choice. Why did it take J&J so long to own up?
Which brings up the questions about aluminum in anti-perspirants. Some of us knew to watch for that ingredient 40 yrs ago.
Why do we allow profits to out-way health risks?
6
I'm as progressive as they come. I have seen cases of real asbestosis and real mesothelioma. When asbestos causes a cancer it does so because the asbestos fibers are trapped in tissue. Asbestos fibers can be seen in the affected tissue on pathology. There is no evidence of such fibers in any cancer patient who was exposed cutaneously to talc containing asbestos. Not in billions of exposures. It's not about politics or human suffering. It's about being scientifically objective so that medicine can actually help people. People who are suffering need help because they are suffering. There is no place in medicine or law for making up stories that someone is to "blame" to get them help.
6
@Dr. Dan Woodard
If it is not the asbestos in talc, then what is it that is the cancer causing agent, particularly in ovarian cancer?
4
Asbestos veins are common in talc mines. Also: common crystalline silica, inhaled, besides being able to cause obstructive lung diseases is a proven known human carcinogen. There is no excuse to inhale any rock or ceramic dusts. Do not poof them all over yourself or your loved ones.
1
Dr. Wood: You speak with utter certainty that "there is no evidence" then jump to the conclusion that those who are somehow suing on are doing so on a false claim (with no evidence) that it was impossible for asbestos to have caused mesothelioma.
1
Mesothelioma is an horrendous lung- and so life-destroying disease, that respects no race, nationality or gender.
So, how many boys - dusted with J&J talcum powder, that contained asbestos - have developed mesothelioma?
Many miners, shipwrights, plumbers, auto mechanics, etc. - most of them males - were exposed to asbestos at work. Their developing mesothelioma would not be surprising.
As tens of millions of babies were dusted with J&J talc-based powders - who were never otherwise exposed to asbestos - there should be at least hundreds of thousands of cases of mesothelioma among those with no other known exposure. That does not seem to be so.
Thus, could not those - with mesolthelioma or ovarian cancer - be ill, for reasons unrelated to exposure to talcum powder?
7
Even if the talc contains trace amounts of asbestos (apparently defense lawyers found none in their own lab tests, otherwise they would have stated they did), you're not suppose to breathe the baby powder during application! So the mesothelioma cases are the fault of the consumer.
As for the ovarian cancer cases, that's a different story, if true.
2
@puma Plaintiff's attorney Mark Lanier's testing of J&J baby powder reveaedl asbestos in the talc several years ago. He was set to go forward and reveal this fact on Fox News, where he had guest anchored some. He flew up to NYC, was sitting on a Fox News set, had the microphone on and was ready to go. A producer came down from the control room, white-faced and visibly upset. This producer told Mark the "bosses" had said the segment couldn't air. J&J is too big of an advertiser for anyone to want to bite the hand that's feeding them all so well.
5
@puma
You can hear Mr. Lanier talk about finding the asbestos in the talc years ago, by listening to the raw video I shot more than a year ago... an interview with him in which he casually mentioned that it happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePDYmT71qf8&list=PLsvTsWr-Z8IueSRIxaSu5R1jdY2p5kmRf&index=17&t=0s
1
I grew up 3 blocks from J and J in the 60s,in New Jersey. As a 13 yr old girl, I was told not to put baby powder on my pads,as it could cause cancer due to talc. Twenty years later I remembered not to use it on my babies,although I loved its smell.
4
I have been a RN for 23 years... baby powder is a Respiratory Irritant .. and should never be used around developing lungs period
4
I remember when I first discovered that ants would not cross a line of Baby Powder.
Yes, poor college students must be resourceful.
I thought what a great non-toxic way to keep them out of the house.
I guess ants know what to stay away from.
Guess what kills roaches better and faster than any bug spray - Windex.
That might be a warning to us all, as well.
3
Nothing in the article indicates whether or not in fact the product contains asbestos. Have no private laboratories analyzed the product? If they have, what were the results?
1
@Golem18 Nobody without a dog in the fight, so to speak, analyzes anything anymore... If there isn't a company or an attorney paying for a test, the test doesn't get done, therefore we have two camps now who test this sort of thing: plaintiffs' attorneys like Mark Lanier (whom I interviewed last year and who talked about his tests, uncovering asbestos in J&J's talc years earlier) and companies that sell these (harmful) products. We think the FDA is testing products, but instead we have the guise of agency oversight without the actual agency oversight, at least when it comes to medical devices. When the federal government stopped providing money for clinical research, guess who was right there, willing to happily step in and pay for "studies," that, oh yea, would then "conclude" the products being tested were "safe and effective? The drug/device/consumer products industry itself. #buyerbeware
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePDYmT71qf8&list=PLsvTsWr-Z8IueSRIxaSu5R1jdY2p5kmRf&index=17&t=0s
3
They never *added* asbestos to baby powder- asbestos and talc often occur together or close together in deposits, so when talc is mined it is not uncommon for it to be contaminated with asbestos. Maybe not every batch, maybe rarely, maybe often, maybe sometimes. They would have to be testing constantly to catch it, and if they did catch it how would they separate it out? Sure would be inconvenient.
1
Johnson did sell powder made of talc in the past. But as to whether or not that talc had asbestos, I couldn't tell. There are dozens of bottles of antique poser avoidable to buy so if you are curious, but some and test it. Asbestos wasn't recognized as a carcinogen for a long time. Realizing that talcs could contain forms of asbestos came later. A tort can happen without an intent to harm.
I know my mother used cornstarch in the sixties, so I'd say the intelligentsia knew not to use talcum but not all people.
Now, well, this week I read that Malessezia, the fungus, causes many cases of pancreatic cancer.
And alcohol, in many Asian people, who turn red when they drink, increases their rate of gastrointestinal cancers by forty times.
1
Talcum powder as long been a known carcinogen and I stopped using it "baby powder" more than 40 years ago. I never let it be used on my kid. I have. No idea what J&J are using these days but I have gotten used to life without out it. I doubt it would be pure corn starch like the food grade stuff in my kitchen.
1
So there are memos that show J&J tried to mitigate a naturally occuring substance because it was possible that it might cause an issue. An issue that still hasn't been proven by the scientific community.
Meanwhile alcohol and tobacco companies sell products KNOWN to kill tens of thousands of people each year, directly and indirectly, proven by science.
You have to ask yourself, why are lawyers suing J&J on shaky scientific grounds when these other companies are ripe for the picking?
This isn't "whataboutism", this is an honest question here: why do we pick some things to be "outraged" about, and other KNOWN things we're like "that's fine"? What about the hive-mentality outrage targets certain things?
4
@Jason Greenwood I'm outraged because, in at least one case about which I learned absolutely by accident, while trying to figure out why I had done so poorly after receiving a set of J&J (DePuy) total hip replacement devices, this company's leaders absolutely knew its new product, a cobalt-chromium total hip replacement device, would be absolutely harmful. The company's own director of hip development (Graham Isaac) sent a memo to the DePuy execs saying as such. It was called the End Game Memo, and basically says, "Why are we even talking about putting something like this back on the market?" The same type of hip ruined lives, back in the 60s & 70s when several companies sold it. The DePuy (J&J) leaders decided to sell this product anyway, because J&J had nothing else to hold up as competition against another company's Birmingham Hip Resurfacing product, that was cutting into the DePuy/J&J hip products' market share. J&J has a culture of doing things like this. A few at the top absolutely know it, when a J&J product has proven itself to be harmful. They hide it. They covertly fund researchers, hiding the money trail by funneling it through sham nonprofit 501(c)3 charities like Dr. Thomas P. Schmalzried's "Piedmont Foundation," which he, himself, a J&J "consultant-surgeon" set up. Nobody discloses significant conflicts of interest, and it's all very shocking. I would never have believed any of this, had I not sat in two trials myself and seen the cancelled checks & 990s.
5
There were warnings about talcum powder and ovarian cancer in the 90’s. I stopped using it then.
2
My understanding is that there a murine animal model today for inhaled asbestos carcinogen studies. Such a study may help settle the issue.
I heard a researcher insist that he assumed most women used baby powder on their genital area. Maybe this was common in the 1950s, but it might be that the women who worried about odors were more likely to talc. This would suggest an association between talc use and chronic discharge, possibly infection. Thus, an increased incidence of ovarian cancer may have more to do with chronic inflammation that was the incentive for powdering. I know of no women who dust their muffs daily otherwise.
5
in the old days some baby powders were made with talc. And some talcs had asbestos. nowadays, a manufacturer would have to be incompetent to make a baby powder with talc.
6
@Analyst - not true, any proof in the "Old" days asbestos was in talcum powder? Never heard of it back in those days, not a peep, but of late the main supplier in India of raw talc, tests did show traceable amounts of asbestos.
2
@Analyst Actually, if you go look at the shelves, companies are still selling talc baby powder (alongside the safer alternative of cornstarch). And as for the safety of talc, go read these documents!! Johnson and Johnson have known about asbestos in talc, which cannot be removed from talc, since the 1950s, and they told the FDA about it in the 1970s!
4
Go on eBay, look up "Johnson baby powder vintage". The powder bottles are collected. look at the close-up photos of the powder bottles. I did it yesterday and saved a few images. Clearly labeled as talc.
1
Examination under a microscope will reveal whether it contains asbestos.
1
My former husband did legal defense work for talc producers in Vermont before my daughter was born over 30 years ago. He later did asbestos defense work. He never let us use talcum powder on our baby because he knew the dangers, and the fact that some talc contained at lest trace amounts of asbestos.
21
@Barbara Strong Judgments in trials are influenced by the human desire to help suffering. There are people who believe strongly that cutaneous exposure to traces of asbestos causes cancer. There is no evidence that this is actually the case.
@Barbara Strong - he had a duty to protect the public and he chose to make money by defending these crooks. Glad you're not married to him anymore . did this have anything to do with your divorce?
3
I put baby powder in my hair to cancel out the oil that my hair produces, could I get cancer from that too!?
6
@Wolfie
I’d stop immediately.
The particles, some smaller than you can see, become airborne and you can inhale them where they become lodged in your lung tissues. That’s how mesothelioma begins.
Wash your hair more often or do what I do when I don’t wash my hair enough and wear a hat or go with the sleek look by adding a bit of gel and brushing it back into a bun or pony tail. I’d also mention this to your doctor and get regular lung checkups.
2
Yup. Treat yourself to a quality dry shampoo instead.
I just rechecked my medicine cabinet to confirm that J&J does sell a pure cornstarch baby powder. The use off a talc based powder on babies or anybody else, considering the very real risk of contamination is unfathomable to me.
9
Plaintiffs are relying upon Junk Science, and the juries are believing them. Sad.
21
J&J’s own docs say otherwise.
13
When you get to court you will find that the plaintiffs and defence being in scientists. I was in jury selection for an asbestos trial several years ago. All the scientists were taken off the jury in one way or another. I was dismissed for complaining (private message) to the judge that the defence was tutoring the jurors during jury selection. I knew I wasn't going to be selected because I had a physics degree and I'd seen every other scientist disqualified. Plus, that's what the defence lawyer was doing.
4
Overuse of anything can cause negative health effects. Too much Coca-Cola can cause diabetes. But too much use of any sugar-laden soft drink can lead to it. With what we know, a lawsuit against Coca-Cola for diabetes would be unsuccessful because those who drink a lot of Coca-Cola also use a lot of sugar in all forms, including a spate of different soft drinks. From what I've read in your articles, those attributing their cancer to J&J baby power used a LOT of it. One said she used it all over herself daily, and even sprinkled it on her bed's sheets. And there are other sources of talc in women's products. J&J's big sin is their historic reluctance to share any information on their product, a foolish thing which makes them and their powder appear guilty. J&J would have been better off releasing any testing of their product, and then labeling that excessive use posed a risk at least of lung damage from direct inhalation, so use it wisely. This labeling could and should have been applied to all powders containing talc, so J&J would not have been singled out. Their corporate sin of stone-walling was compounded by their fear of consumer fear and worse, the fact that they sold more baby power from those overusing it.
J&J can solve their problem now with a little labeling that should be applied to all baby powders based on talc. The lung damage from overuse can be proven. The link to other cancers is more tenuous.
18
@Amos M Good point. Inhaling large quantities of talc or indeed any dust is irritating.
1
My mom used baby powder for decades and lived into her nineties. she never had ovarian cancer.
7
@kerri Nothing, including cigarettes, has a 100% mortality rate. My mother in law smoked like a chimney, and constantly told everyone that the link to cancer was a hoax.
She too lived into her nineties and died of something else.
28
@kerri
GENETICS
It’s a lottery game we all play daily. My great grandfather smoke cigars daily and died at 99 of pneumonia precipitated by a hospital admission for a fall. Yet my uncle and his grandson, who smoked cigarettes daily and worked as an auto mechanic, died of emphysema and complicating factors in his late 60s. My point is that our genetics, which by means of the random selection that happens at conception can vary even within a family, greatly affect our chances of being more or less susceptible to disease and environmental factors.
Environment is a big factor too. We came to believe that my uncle’s exposure to the asbestos in the hundreds of brake pads he installed over his lifetime gave him the extra complicating factor that ended his life so early. It was the early 80s and an era when we didn’t have the tools or information yet to confirm our suspicion.
Some are more susceptible to things than others solely due to genetics. Black people don’t get skin cancer at the same rate as white people because their genetics give them the extra protection of melanin. We are only at the beginning of mapping genomes and connecting the dots of individual genes, the infinite combinations in all people, and the connection all the genes and combinations have to the disease potential of each person. Just because your mom won the genetic lottery with talc use doesn’t mean everyone will.
9
@kerri Neither early death nor logevity prove or disprove causation. However in trhe case of asbestos the fibers are always visible in tissue when asbestos causes cancer, and this has never been the case for ovarian cancer.
1
I’m just thinking of the number of carcinogen warnings I see everyday on most everything I encounter and now you’re telling me even baby powder too! Welcome to your world, kid.
6
I with parents all the time baby powder and has not been routinely used among the parents I work with for at least the last 20 years. Any powder is not good for lung development with or without the risk of asbestos.
My mother had four children. She used J & J Baby Powder on each of us (and on herself) believing she was doing the right thing. "A dry baby is a happy baby." She died of Ovarian Cancer at 72... non-BRCA, so it was not genetic, most likely environmental. None of us are "happy" about it.
17
@MR I am really sorry to hear about your mother, but postmenopausal ovarian cancer at age 72 is most likely the result of a spontaneous mutation, not an environmental carcinogen. Cancer in an internal organ requires a toxin that can be absorbed. Asbestos is not absorbed so it has only local effects, primarily in the lungs.No mechanism transports it tot he ovaries. Ovarian cancer due to asbestos is a legal fiction.
2
I would like to thank my mother, Wendy, for drumming it into my head 27 years ago when I had my first child, never to use talcum powder lest my child inhale it and sustain lung damage. My mother is a grandparent to eight children, at least six of whom have never had talcum powder applied to their bodies, thanks to her reading scientific treatises that suggested a problem all those years ago.
21
@andrea olmanson Yes I've been wondering because I was told absolutely 38 years ago with my first NEVER to use baby powder for exactly that reason. I had no idea it was in use. Your mother Wendy was not the only one who knew this. My pediatricians said no as well.
3
Why should we consider two reporters competent to review scientific studies?
21
Because. . .
One of the most important things reporters do is mediate between experts and the general public. Scientists in particular use highly specialized language that can be hard for the rest of us to understand, and a good reporter makes that critical content accessible.
10
Nonsense. Reporters are often trained in the sciences and have read beaucoup scientific studies. Any scientific study, taken together with interviews with scientists and review of the available scientific research literature can form the basis of sound medical reporting.
How in the world can we as a society expect to learn from our mistakes and move forward with better safeguards in place for future generations if we don’t pay attention to what the science is showing us?
For the record, when the Surgeon General under President Eisenhower reported the links between smoking and heart disease, my mother was wise enough to insist that my then young dad quit smoking. He lived to be 98.
1
Because if I can teach stats to my undergrads, and they also learn to read meta-analyses quite effectively, so can journalists similarly trained make sense of scientific findings.
3
This site is very suboptimal. Provide a direct link to the show of interest. As information grows by pentabytes daily finding what you want gets harder & harder.
Vis a vis. Johnson & Johnson and asbestos: put all the information out there. Recognize that we live in an uncertain world and there is no absolute truth. Also bear in mind that lawyers create nothing of lasting value and can only obtain their wealth by taking it from some other entity.
10
@Rick
The next time you need legal help you should give in to your adversary and give him everything he wants, because lawyers who could defend you are bad people.
24
J&J really aren't going to admit, in an open forum, the potential damage their product could cause to the human body.
In life, for people, if the truth doesn't fit then it's not their truth.
9
Johnson & Johnson has knowingly used asbestos and asbestos-related ingredients in their products for decades. What makes anyone believe that J&J is any different than the tobacco, chemical, mining, fossil fuel, banking, soda, sugar and other corporate industries who routinely lie to their customers?
23
@DSD
Evidence?
8
As I understand it, there are 2 ways that scientists attempt to study cause & effect. One is causational and the other is correlative. With causational studies, the scientist combines 2 groups of subjects, one of which is dosed with the substance under study and the other is not dosed. Then the scientist follows the two groups over the years, to measure the difference in cases resulting from the substance under study between the two groups. With correlative studies, the scientist can only measure cases of cancer claimed by previous users of talc without any control group, so it is really not reliable or trustworthy. As far as I know, nobody has yet produced a causational study on the prevalence of cancer resulting from talc -- nor is anyone likely to produce one, so the whole "proof" will remain in the realm of anecdotal evidence and lawyers' persuasiveness for the foreseeable future..
28
@Piri Halasz — It's not possible to run a long-term clinical study on the carcinogenicity risks of using baby powder because there is no way to verify the subjects are using the product (or not using it). Not to mention there is no way to accurately monitor large populations outside of a controlled clinical setting for years.
3
@Piri Halasz
1-because no research body would approve such a study. Ethics. Human experimentation has a history we don't want to repeat, e.g. Tuskegee syphilis, sterilizing women without informed consent
2- who would volunteer to expose themselves to a possible carcinogen once informed of the risk?
3-In cases such as these, correlative studies/metadata are the only way such
1
@Piri Halasz By that logic you can get rid of all medical research. Since it also requires that you only have a single agent that you are altering between the test group and the control. This is impossible with humans--what we eat, our activities, and our environment contain too many different factors (unlike lab bacteria that you can control). By this rationale few medications and treatments would every be approved (like statins). This is not "anecdotal" and you don't understand how scientific research and statistical and quantifiable evidence is evaluated. --But if yo do want to believe you need 100% causation for everything, I suggest you empty your medicine cabinet.
1
It is shameful how in this day and age America systematically chooses to dismiss scientific data, which are abundant and crystal clear, based on unsubstantiated propaganda, hearsay, and 'chronic litigationitis'. J&J's products meet the most stringent safety standards and are probably the most studied out there. One does not build a thriving business that saves millions of lives every year with cancer, HIV, tuberculosis and other medicines based on bogus science. In the rare situation of product defects or contamination (e.g., the tylenol crisis), J&J is known for acting responsibly and always putting consumer and patient safety first. More companies should follow's J&J's example. Alas, many envy success, and no good deeds go unpunished.
27
@Baruch S I'm sad to say it, but the J&J of today is nothing like the J&J of the Tylenol scare days. It's a totally different animal. I wouldn't have believed it though either, had I not seen the cancelled checks for myself, as well as the 990 forms of the scam nonprofit entities (set up by J&J consultants themselves) used to funnel money to crooked "researchers" and all the months of damning evidence and testimony about what J&J/DePuy execs did, with regard to its Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip replacement devices. Maybe though I just happened to stumble across the case of the one time a bunch of J&J-owned company leaders did things this way...
1
Your comment sounds like that of a J&J spokesperson or employee. J&J is not a charity. Its bottom line is to make money. Period. Why shouldn’t we be scrupulous about safety concerns involving their products?
2
As a Pediatric Nurse Practitioner, I learned way back in the 1980s to advise parents against using any sort of baby powder due to the possibility of the infant inhaling it. I would hope that other health care practitioners have also been advising against its use!
Americans should also consider the overuse of antibacterial or bleach wipes another unnecessary and potentially harmful product.
54
In the mid eighties I knew to use corn starch rather than baby powder as did my peers.
15
@Betsy Liljeberg I too used corn starch on my children and totally agree with Betsy about the overuse of wipes--they are probably more harmful over time than the germs to which you may be exposed .
12
One of the largest consumers of antibacterial wipes are medical institutions.
It was only FOUR years ago that J&J removed Quaternium-15, which releases formaldehyde, from their baby shampoo. Ditto 1,4-dioxane, which CPFS notes "even as a trace contaminant, is cause for concern".
Keep in mind that he scalp absorbs about fourfold the rate of other skin. What do all the chemicals used to stabilize oil-in-water emulsions (lotions and creams) do, especially after decades of daily use?
9
I didn't listen but as I recall it and this blurb under the player does not indicate the NYT recently ran an article in which it spoke of J&J baby powder testing done from inception of the product by the maker which showed there was Asbestos in it. They sought to keep levels low as some sources were better than others, but they have never been able to get that to zero.
just saying to be speaking of it as if it were not a proven fact now brings up questions of whether or not the previous article was true.
Btw you cannot mine talc without also mining Asbestos.
9
Talc is used for many things other than Baby Powder.
In the pottery industry, when you buy Talc, the seller tells you what mine it is from, because not every mine produces talc that is polluted with asbestos.
17% of talc that is used in the United States is used by the paper industry. It "fills" the surface of the paper, to give the paper a smooth white surface, which is especially useful, if you are printing full color material.
I would be curious, to now if the Times has looked into this issue, in reference to the Sunday Magazine section, which uses a glossy finished newsprint paper.
18
Nothing can stand between a plaintiff's personal injury attorney quest for justice and a financially solvent product manufacturer. Correlation and causaton are at best disfantly related.
Coupled with American scientific ignorance, illiteracy and stupidity the product liability insurance racket is not making America great.
19
@Blackmamba
"Correlation and causaton are at best disfantly related."
To have cause there must be correlation.
4
@James F Traynor Not in a scientific sense. One only has to convince a jury. The victims of cancer are suffering and it is human nature to try to help them. Forcing J&J to sell medications to medicare based on negotiated prices would help far more human suffering than a few massive payouts, most of which goes to lawyers.
@Blackmamba Couple all that with the fact that Industry can buy/produce/create whatever "scientific results" it needs to protect itself in court.
Baby powder is an American obsession. It used to be common in Europe, but has gone out of fashion, as it has no benefits if you have disposable diapers.
8
@S
It is used for absorption and to prevent chafing of skin moving/rubbing on skin. A light coat of petroleum jelly works better.
3
Like thousands of other women my sister died of their ovarian cancer. The first thing you would notice when you came close to Kathleen was the clean smell of token powder Johnson & Johnson talcin powder. My sister and I with the closest in our large family it was devastating to watch her die this painful death. That was seven years ago I know today that the cause of her death was from her use of talcin powder every day.
The men and women that are on the board of Johnson & Johnson should be totally ashamed of themselves. To them it's just money making more and lying about it. That clean sweet innocent smell, is really death in its most horrible form.
24
@John Metz Clark — So you're saying the FDA under both Clinton and Obama was corrupt?
1
@John Metz Clark I am so sorry your sister and your family went through this. It didn't have to happen. It's utterly disgusting and shameful.
1
All of a sudden there are tons of J&J TV commercials claiming
they take care of us from birth onward.
Anyway 30 years ago we only used cloth diapers and if there was any irritation on babies bottoms, we used a little ointment.
10
@New World I am sorry to hear about your loss. But without objective science we cannot prevent or treat human suffering. Ovarian cancer is a common and deadly problem. Asbestos fibers are easily recognizable, but there are no reports of asbestos fibers in a cancerous ovary.
@New World but disposable diapers are so much more convenient as are many things that come back to haunt us.
@New World The "We Care for You" campaign is just J&J's highly produced attempt to both influence the public's view of the company, in light of the numerous verdicts against it, related to its harmful products and also to put a ton of money in the pocketbooks of the media conglomerates that, yes, own news stations that might be tempted to investigate and run stories on the numerous J&J-product scandals, if the J&J hand (via commercials for Neutrogena, Advil, Tylenol, Band-Aid, Mentor, Accuvue, Ethicon, Janssen... all J&J brands... and thousands more!) that's now feeding them so well were not so large, wealthy and powerful. What news station, dependent upon sales of commercial advertising spots, would want to bite a hand like that?
I was neither a scientist nor medical researcher when my beautiful baby girl was born nearly 50 years ago. I was just an everyday mom who lavished love the best way I knew how ... and the scent of baby powder still reminds me of the diaper changes. So today I am heartsick with grief that my actions may cause harm.
In reading comments here it seems that I was the only idiot in the room who knew nothing about chrysotile or why no sane person would use a talc. I only know that powder smelled like love back then.
54
@hotGumption
Please, don’t berate yourself. My mother used baby powder on us too because it was the 1960s and America was still young and naive in the new “atomic age” and the thrall of “better living through chemistry”. Everyone I knew used baby powder. Later as a young teen in the 70s I used baby oil and broiled under the sun like everyone else at the beach or by the pool to get a tan like “Malibu Barbie”. I did not know any better because the idea of skin cancer was nowhere to be seen or heard yet by the general public. I still have magazines from the era and there are no mention of skin cancer or talc dangers.
As much as I resent Boomers selling out the progressive era in their later years, they were responsible for shaking Americans awake to the potential that the powers that be don’t always have our best interests at heart. The irony is that they later valued tax cuts over adequately funding the regulatory infrastructure needed to police companies that skirt and hide the science against their products.
The other commenters in the room to which you refer are younger than you, one stating she had her baby in the 1980s, and thus had the critical information you and my mom never had.
1
Whoa.... wait - does this apply to all talc baby powders? Should we stop using baby powder? Is there going to be more detail coming about what the risks are here?
3
@Carrie Yes. There are baby powders based on cornstarch. I wouldn't get near a talc-based powder. I understand talc and asbestos are found together in nature where talc is mined.
9
@Carrie
Yes, it applies to all talc-containing products: baby powders, makeup, etc.
3
I wouldn’t even use corn starch because the dust particles can get into the lungs.
Does anyone believe that J&J would ever admit that its baby powder causes cancer?
5
@Frank Technically, they did admit that in their internal documents. That's kind of the point of the lawsuits.
They knew from the 1960s that their purification processes were substandard, and asbestos was in their products.
12
Where does it say that J&J admitted in their internal documents that the powder causes cancer?
2
@Francesca
as far as I know no evidence exists that the powder actually causes cancer except in miners who inhaled asbestos fibers.
why haven't we seen any suits by males, whose mothers must have put that same powder in THEIR diapers? No testicular cancers? no abnormalities? seems really strange too.
38
@dve commenter
This is an absolutely brilliant question that seems not to gave occurred to anyone else.
12
@hotGumption Maybe anatomy as far as ovarian cancer is concerned. Forty years ago our pediatrician said, you can use powder on the baby, just don’t let it go all over the place. That’s hard to do. And we also put it his neck rolls when he got sweaty. They must have had some questions about this product back then.
1
this hoax is a perfect example of why we must have legal tort reform shysters will use any excuse to line their own pockets it should be illegal to bring these suits with a complete lack of scientific backup
19
@Obummer They have scientific backup. That's why it's illegal to use asbestos in homes building materials now.
11
@Viv Talc is not asbestos.
6
@Moderate Republican
Asbestos is actually SIX different fibrous crystalline silicate minerals. Talc is another closely related silicate which is often found with some kinds of asbestos.
Talc is nearly asbestos, and is often contaminated with it.
13
In the 6O's it was thought as a necessary routine to dust our babies with Johnson's talcum powder after bathing or changing their diapers. Mine are now in their 50's and seem to be fine. There must be at least thousands if not millions walking around with the same history.
Never thought i would ever stick up for a corporation but life is full of surprises.
10
@Nightwood Millions of people smoke and don't have lung cancer either.
5
@ Viv I'm one of them. Love my smokes and a shot of good brandy. I tell myself I'll quit when I'm 90.
4
@Viv There is a clear mechanism by which inhaling cigarette smoke causes cancer. The radiation from polonium is detectable and the smoke particles are visible in the lungs.
My family is in a lawsuit right now with the makers of Goldbond over my dads death from mesothelioma in February. He used the powder religiously starting in high school back in the 1950’s. They at least changed their formula away from talc in later years. Last weekend walking through Target we come upon an endcap in the baby section filled with row upon row of Johnson & Johnson baby powder. My mom turns around a bottle. The only ingredient: talc. J&J have blood on their hands.
16
Get a whole lot of Johnson and Johnson baby powder containers.
Test each for asbestos.
Either asbestos is present or it is not present.
If some asbestos is present then how much.
7
I distinctly remember news reports about the fact that baby powder contained asbestos at least 35 years ago. So what is the surprise now?
11
@Dennis Wilson Because many/most people get their information from tv, not from reading deeply or at all.
3
@Dennis Wilson — Defense attorneys already had their experts test thousands of bottles of J&J Baby Powder and they never found any asbestos. Not once.
A thorough investigation of the peer-reviewed medical literature produces no evidence that exposure to cosmetic talcum powder yields exposure to asbestos or causes malignant mesothelioma. Published studies of talc miners from Norway, France, Austria, and Vermont failed to identify an increase risk of mesothelioma, yet the miners received exposures many fold higher than cosmetic talcum powder users. Epidemiological studies have failed to identify the use of cosmetic talc as a cause of malignant mesothelioma. Cosmetic talcum powder was not formulated to contain asbestos. In a single peer-reviewed study that identified “asbestos” in talcum powder, the authors mistook non-asbestiform fibers for asbestos in talcum powder and did not employ a thorough analysis of the fibers found by electron microscopic analysis to demonstrate the proper technique to provide positive identification of the fibers. Three published studies of patients who have undergone talc pleurodesis, a procedure in which talc is injected directly into the pleural cavity to treat persistent accumulation of fluid the pleural cavity, did not identify a single case of malignant mesothelioma. Millions of people have used cosmetic talcum powder but malignant mesothelioma remains a rare disease and individuals who have malignant mesothelioma should look elsewhere to explain their disease.
48
@Nate Grey
Try telling that to a jury. Emotion, not reason, motivates the jury process.
12
@blgreenie You're right. Many things "inform" the decisions of jurors -- the length of the trial (fatigue sets in at some time), the likability of experts, the capability of experts to speak to jurors who usually have far less knowledge than the experts, the capability of the plaintiff's and defense's attorneys, biases carried into the courtroom (how many advertisements has a juror seen about damage caused by various products and how many personal injury adds has a juror seen?), confirmation bias (how well have plaintiff or defense presentations agreed with a juror's preconceived ideas), and the list goes on.
7
@Nate Grey As a non-scientist, my take on your information re: talc miners and cosmetic talc users (like face powder I assume) do not suffer an increase cancer, could very well be an age or developmental issue.
A baby is forming, growing, cells developing which could account for the potential increase in cancers later in life with exposure to even small, but daily amounts of talc.
1
I am totally perplexed that there have been cases for uterine cancer being caused by ingredients in baby powder and yet no cases presented that show lung damage.
I used this baby powder daily after each bath in evening and always put on neck and under and around breasts. I now have COPD .
Why have no cases been presented that investigate possible lung damage ?
5
@lynzisister my mum used j&j talc. My Dad used it also. My mum used it on us, as children following bath time.
My mum bought it for over 30 years.
The smell was sheer delight.
My Dad died in 2009 of lung cancer.
My mum was diagnosed with uterine cancer.
I was suspected of having breast cancer at 29.
My sister and I, as children were diagnosed with asthma. As an adult now Im still hospitalized with severe/ chronic respiratory problems due to asthma.
There will be more cases that emerge.
8
@United
Sadly, your family may, and I stress may, be an example of my earlier comment on the degree to which genetics probably play in who does and does not succumb to disease. I’m surprised it’s still not front and center to any of these health discussions but it will be in time. Mapping individual genomes for disease potential will one day be a routine part of health checkups.
I worry that the nation’s stubborn clinging to creationism over evolution will hold us back from embracing the full potential of the role genetics can play in our health. The fact that some of us succumb to environmental factors while others do not is evolution playing out right in front of our eyes. That’s how adaptive change in whole species occurred. We can take that information and use it to care for and protect everyone or at least arm each individual with information on how to live his/her healthiest life.
It’s vitally important we all vote pro-science at every level of government, even at or especially at the local school board level. No theocrats in any position of civic authority, ever.
2
Johnson and Johnson should be ashamed of themselves for not making their CEO, other senior managers or in house scientific and medical staff available to reporters. There's nothing under the curcumstances that hurts any company more than a supposedly model corporate citizen keeping their bosses away from the media. J&J's directors (and if they drag their feet shareholders) should hold managements feet to the fire and demand full public transparency....if they have nothing to hide.
5
Neither talc nor asbestos are soluble. A chemist should then wonder how an insoluble chemical enters the body at the cellular level to cause any effect. A chemist should also examine the USP (United States Pharmacopeia) and read the monogram for medical grade talc. A chemist should then look for other medical uses of the product.
A chemist will find: Talcum powder as sold by J&J is used as treatment for malignant pleural effusion, a lung condition often caused by lung or breast cancer in which fluid builds up around the lungs.
The USP has a long established record of determining safe limits of 'other chemicals' in pharmaceuticals and has limits on asbestos. A chemist would then determine if the accused product is within those limits. In short, a chemist would perform the tests before opining.
The stunning ignorance of the layperson that is preyed upon by a cohort of attorneys is unhelpful in every respect. This same irrational mentality resulted in the destruction of Dow-Corning over the bogus claims of silicone causing breast cancer. We see the same controversy over glyphosate.
In everything there is a potential for harm, but in chemistry one should be rational and recognize this fact: Potential for harm is a function of exposure. (Ex. table salt, sodium chloride also has great potential to kill you, IF consumed in excessive quantities.)
27
@Jim
Lucky for plaintiffs and their attorneys. The lay public's thinking is not based in science.
9
@Jim
It enters the body by inhalation. Asbestos isn't soluble either, but when inhaled causes mesothelioma by mechanical irritation..
The question is whether talc contains enough asbestos to be harmful.
1
It doesn’t have to be soluble to cause cancer. Some substances cause cancer by exerting effects directly at the molecular level inside cells, but others such as asbestos cause chronic irritation and subsequent inflammation. In recent years it has become clear that chronic inflammation is potentially carcinogenic and the resultant metaplasia and subsequent dysplasia in rapidly dividing tissues is the pathogenesis for a whole host of cancers.
Regarding pleurodesis, as you pointed out it is generally for malignant effusions. Malignant effusions are present only in stage IV cancer (their presence is sufficient diagnostic criteria for stage IV) and unfortunately patients generally don’t live long after diagnosis. It is plausible that survival is not long enough in general after talc pleurodesis to show an association with mesothelioma.
1
As years fly by I am reminded, daily it seems, that oversight, lousy oversight that is, is the cause of most of the world’s problem. And greed of course.
4
It is implausible to believe that J&J didn’t conduct chemical tests of many batches of the talc. Also where are the test results from independent testing of the talc? If such tests indicated asbestos in the talc or in certain batches of it then it would seem there is a basis for the suits since J&J would have clearly known about it. But if testing data including independent tests don’t support it then this appears to be ungrounded lawsuits.
3
I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer at the age of 44. There is no history of breast or ovarian cancer in my family. I tested negative for the BRCA gene. Lifestyle and age were not a factor. However, I used Johnson’s Baby Powder daily since I was a teen until my diagnosis. I, along with countless women, have paid the price for using a product that we thought was safe.
7
Did you use it in your private areas? If so, why? The label told you to do that?
1
I have a severe allergy to Johnson's baby powder because it contains or did contain Orris root a known allergen from iris root and used for perfume. I was finally able to find non perfumed talc in England and my problems stopped. I mention this just in case others have rashes from baby powder and do not know why.
1
I recall having talc around the house when I was growing up, but didn't use it regularly and never used it on my baby.
I used cloth diapers on my son (he's now 16) which I washed at home and dried on a rack...had very few problems with rashes. What issues he did have were solved almost like magic with a natural Calendula cream.
3
Frequent diaper changes and gentle warm water wash & dry on a baby bottom usually negates the need to use either baby powder or corn starch.
And if baby powder is bad because of the talc/asbestos relationship despite more than a century of use, what will be discovered in this century about the hazards of the switch to corn starch?
Hmmm. Corn is treated with pesticides to protect the crops, some of which have been implicated in cancer. Is it certain that the pesticides are not in the baby cornstarch?
6
It is mind boggling that people assume corn starch is safe even beyond the obvious it is a particulate that can be inhaled and perhaps do something.
One of the reasons for a powder is to dry which helps prevent microorganisms from growing. Maybe corn starch does this. But.
Corn starch is a carbon source and depending on the person and the circumstances could actually feed certain microorganisms. In fact, it is used in growth medium for some bacteria in laboratory settings.
Has there been systematic investigation to determine if common skin microorganisms could propagate on the skin at an increased rate by providing corn starch in some people?
9
Can these plaintiffs swear and prove that they bought and used ONLY Johnson & Johnson brand baby powder? They are not the only company that makes such a product. Other producers may not be so particular about the source and purity of their talc. A consumer agency recently did a survey of grated Parmesan cheese. They discovered that virtually all of the brands sold were adulterated with sawdust, except one major brand, Kraft.
6
A couple of years ago I tried using vinegar to clean windows. Eureka! It works really well, much better than Windex. That's made me very skeptical of corporate's creating "new and better!" ways of doing things. Not always true.
5
@Kim Windex is ammonia with blue dye. You can buy it in jugs just like bleach, and for about the same price.
2
Windex smells much better too.
1
My father worked for more than fifty years as a diamond setter. In his work he used baby powder to dull the brilliance of the stones.His work required that he came I'm close contact with the work ,,breathing in the powder. He died in his seventies from cancer of the lining of the lungs.I always believed that it was a work related illness.
8
Whether there is a connection with the cancer cases cited and talcum powder is not proven. Talc contains asbestos and asbestos is a carcinogen. But making the cause and effect connection is something else. Nonetheless, J&J could have discontinued the product, it made for a small amount of their revenue, if they had concerns about it being carcinogenic due to containing asbestos. At my supermarket, there is a shelf containing baby powder, talc and cornstarch. Why not require labeling talc, as cigarettes, stating that it contains asbestos, a known cancer-causing agent?
4
@blgreenie
If you shop in California, good luck finding any product that ISN'T labeled as "known to the State of California to cause cancer."
6
@blgreenie ALL talc does not contain asbestos. These days I doubt there is any talcum powder from J&J with asbestos present. If there is such contamination, then J&J deserve everything that happens.
We ingest many carcinogens voluntarily - our air is filled with them. It's the price of modernity. But not all carcinogens are equal at all levels.
1
This makes me wonder whether the cancer causing agent in baby powder is talc, or if any finely ground powder is potentially harmful. I also wonder about all of the many powdered cosmetics that are widely used. Millions of people every day use bronzing powder, contouring powder, “mineral-based” powder foundation like Bare Minerals, blush and eye shadows, many of which contain metallic particles that reflect light. Is repeated use of these products, applied on the face where they can be inhaled into air passages, safe? I know the FDA has no oversight of the cosmetics industry. I would love to see a more in-depth investigation on this.
21
@Christine I’ve been wondering this a lot lately about cosmetics. I use powder mineral cosmetics especially a very fine silica powder on my face; I hold my breath before & while applying and don’t breathe until I exit the room. I’ve read that you can’t develop silicosis from face powder, but who knows.
3
@Christine
It is likely that all finely ground powders are toxic when inhaled. The effect is physical, not chemical.
No one needs cosmetics.
Most customers consider J&J a very high quality company with a long standing reputation for quality control and respected marketing practices. It is known for dealing very well with the Tylenol scare in the early 1980's. But companies can and do make mistakes and it's my opinion that there is a bias to "protect" the institution whether it's a religion or a business or a military unit. If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that asbestos in its products clearly caused harm to customers, then J&J must settle with plaintiffs to the satisfaction of the courts.
2
There is a lot of junk "science" used by plaintiff's attorneys to justify large settlements. Remember all the cases of sudden acceleration that caused Audi to pay millions? Of course those ended as soon as automakers reengineered cars to require that the brake be applied to shift out of park.
Of course some people who used talc will develop cancer. The real question that needs to be addressed is whether the incidence of cancer is statistically higher in people who used talc compared to those who didn't. J&J should be funding such a study - unless they already know the results.
5
Fine ground powders whether silica, asbestos or talc should not be used for everyday use by humans. These same materials when used on construction sites as filler for slurries require the use of particulate respirators. Many cancers, most notably cervical cancer, have been linked to these over the counter powders.
5
Given the ubiquitous and long use of talc, my question is this: why are there not more reported cases of adverse effect related to talc if it's such a bad agent? When investigators started looking at insulators in the 1960s, it was pretty clear that there was a link between asbestos and lung disease, partly because insulators were breathing in large quantities of raw asbestos (70% +), whereas talc might contain as a trace contaminant (<1% if detectable at all) rather than an ingredient. Moreover insulators worked with asbestos for an entire eight hour shift whereas talc application generally lasts a few minutes.
Where we get stuck is that if something contains a carcinogen, it must necessarily be associated with significant risk, regardless of the dose. No one really seems to think about the carcinogenic risk associated with eating mushrooms (hydrazines), no one cares about the carcinogenic risk of peanut butter (aflatoxins from peanut mold), few worry about formaldehyde coursing through our veins as a natural metabolic constituent. Few seem to worry about naturally occurring asbestos in California. Bottom line IMHO is that if we want to worry about carcinogens, we need to take into account dose. It's easy to say that zero dose is the only safe dose, but that is also an impractical approach given the lengthy list of man made and naturally occurring (i.e. organic) substances that have been shown to be carcinogenic (many at very high doses few of us are likely to encounter).
8
Various forms of "asbestos" can be carcinogenic. However to cause cancer the asbestos particles have to enter the body. For most asbestos-related cancer the pathway is logical: e.g. lung and mesothelial cancers result from inhalation of the mineral particles. In the cases cited in the litigation, there is no clear pathway postulated for uterine or ovarian cancer. Asbestos is an inert mineral and there is no physiological pathway for it to reach the uterus, let alone the ovaries, from external vaginal application. In fact the female uro-genital tract is designed to expell foreign material not retain it.
The number of people who have used scented talcum powder is huge relative to the numbers of cancers. Thus the most probable explanation is "the rolling of the cosmic, genetic dice" ( or god's will if you prefer superstition). The findings of a California civil jury are a very good reason to treat this with the level of scepticism that Trump reserves for Russian electoral interference.
11
The suits pending may be enough to bankrupt Johnson and Johnson. Most or all of these suits seem to be based on questionable science. Similar lawsuits claiming that Roundup weed killer causes lymphoma threaten the existence of Bayer; these suits are also based on very questionable science. J&J and Bayer are two of the largest companies that develop, test and market the medicines and medical devices on which we all depend.
The government regulates but does not, with few exceptions, make drugs and medical devices available to patients. To state the obvious, neither do lawyers and law firms. Companies, including big pharma, do.
Our current civil legal system is the wrong forum to adjudicate and punish most product liability. Juries tend to base their verdicts on emotions, and bad outcomes. They are, by and large, ill equipped to judge the science. Expert witnesses are all too often guns for hire, and serve those that pay their fees. Verdicts are often unjust and usually far too high, and threaten the existence of these companies.
The vaccine industry in the US was nearly shutdown during the 1970's and early 1980's, until Congress intervened at the 11th hour and passed a no-fault compensation law.
If we don't reform our state and federal liability laws, and reign in tort lawyers, the medicines and medical devices we all rely on when we become ill may cease to be available.
9
I never once used baby powder on myself or my son. I don’t understand why it’s necessary.
6
Going way back, into the '40's, I recall that my barber's shop was a den of talcum powder. I still recall the familiar smell. After each customer, including me, he'd twist a brush a few times in a bowl of talcum power and liberally powder the back of the neck. It felt nice and cool and signified the end of the haircut and I could jump out of the barber's chair, surrounded by a cloud of talc. Visiting regularly for years, I recall that he never varied that extra touch. In those days, with other customers puffing on their Camels as they waited, we were certainly not cancer-conscious. Amazing that some of us are still around. But what about the barbers? Was this a wide-spread barbering ritual? If so, barbers were inhaling the stuff all day for years. Makes me wonder if asbestos-related lung disease has shown up more frequently among them.
13
The fact is that Johnson and Johnson switched its baby powder formulation over to Cornstarch sometime before 2010, so it is really questionable whether it was their powder that caused the damage. Another fact is that women tend to use the CHEAPEST product they can find for perineal powdering, and I believe that many of the afffected women really used powders obtained from discount and dollar stores rather than Johnson & Johnson products. After all, Baby Powder is manufactured by HUNDREDS of companies, and much of it is actually made in China, a nation well known for the contamination of consumer products. Funny that only Johnson & Johnson is being sued and accused. I guess its because suing a Chinese company (for example) is just too difficult.
The problem is that no one can PROVE what they actually used, and since Johnson & Johnson is a wealthy corporation with deep pockets, they have become the number one targets for these lawsuits.
4
@Elizabeth Moore
Your facts are wrong. J&J did not switch its formulation. Both corn starch and pure talc versions are available for sale currently. Check Walmart, Amazon, etc.
You may believe what you like and find convenient for your point of view. The fact is that it's quite easy to prove that these people have used J&J products by showing them purchasing receipts. It's not exactly difficult to do, especially with online orders.
3
@Viv
Of course everyone can believe what they like and find convenient for heir point of view. The challenge is to be genuinely objective, rational and open minded. None of us have all the facts, just some.
What about all the other manufacturers of talcum powder? Are they safe and are they being sued are valid, rational questions.
Asbestos is a mineral. It is a crystalline form of silicon dioxide known as silica. Many things are made of or contain silica including white beach sand and glass. Mesothelioma and silicosis are lung diseases resulting from inhalation. Asbestos under a microscope is a long thin fibre with barbs. They are chemically inert and tangle together with lots of air gaps which is why it works so well as a high temperature insulator.
The fibres are also brittle like glass and their barbed shape is such that when inhaled, some will pierce cell walls inside the lung and stay there rather than being expelled by the lungs usual cleaning mechanisms. They don't travel through the blood or lymphatic systems they physically remain as cell irritants and at some time and quantity threshold will cause malignant mesothelioma. Often after 10 to 20 years. yearshttps://images.app.goo.gl/jJ1rHUJzT4EpKFHx6
I have no knowledge of the makeup of J&J talc but the asbestos claim seems a bit far fetched when the law suits to-date are for non-inhalation related cancers.
2
@Mark
Asbestos is not a form of silica. It is a hydrated magnesium silicate.
The fact is that Johnson and Johnson switched its baby powder formulation over to Cornstarch sometime before 2010, so it is really questionable whether it was their powder that caused the damage.
Another fact is that women tend to use the CHEAPEST product they can find for perineal powdering, and I believe that many of the afffected women really used powders obtained from discount and dollar stores rather than Johnson & Johnson products. Dollar stores tend to sell cheap items made in China. After all, Baby Powder is manufactured by HUNDREDS of companies, and much of it is actually made in China, a nation well known for the contamination of consumer products. Funny that only Johnson & Johnson is being sued and accused. I guess it's because suing a Chinese company (for example) is just too difficult.
The problem is that no one can PROVE what they actually used, and since Johnson & Johnson is a wealthy corporation with deep pockets, they have become the number one targets for these lawsuits.
1
Why use any baby powder or talc for kids? I never did and it was never an issue. It’s just another unnecessary purchase.
4
How does one prove that talc causes cancer ? I think it is an assumption when talc is found within the cancer. Since talc is an inert foreign body, perhaps the tumor forms independently and just can’t consume it. Much like an IUD may be entrapped by a uterine cancer or a kidney stone may be enveloped by a kidney cancer. I am just wondering.
1
Wasn't this a scandal years ago? Because of concerns that baby powder might contain asbestos I switched to using cornstarch, which J&J also produces. Why is this coming up again?
@EMiller
It's not coming up again. The NYT just got around to making a movie about it, leading people to believe that it's new. They've lost several class action lawsuits and had to pay billions in damages as a result. They're appealing the verdicts, so no money has been paid out yet.
https://www.asbestos.com/news/2019/06/03/johnson-johnson-asbestos-talc-verdict/
3
When I was young, in the late 50's and early 60's it was common for a woman's daily grooming to dust herself with powder. My grandmother used scented body powder. My mother used scented body powder. I was given gifts at my birthdays and christmas of gift packs containing cologne and body powder. I didn't much like it. I didn't like having to clean every surface of the bathroom and bedroom because powder does settle eventually.
I had 3 children. The first was born before disposable diapers. She might have an occasional diaper rash but I found that just changing detergent, double rinsing, and frequent changing led to less diaper rash. My other 2 were born 6 and 8 years later and disposable diapers were the thing all 'good' parents did. But both had a diaper rash nearly constantly for the first month of life. I changed them to cloth diapers and I didn't have to use any more fishy-smelling unguent topped with powder with every change. I could just wash their cloth diapers and rinse the twice, hanging them to dry in the sunshine or in the winter in front of the radiator. I think my children were easier to potty train because they liked being dry. Well, anyway, I'm glad I never much cared for powder even if it was only because I didn't want to clean more often.
Sometimes it pays to be lazy and not to watch too much tv or listen to people who have discovered the latest and greatest new necessary thing. Ivory and almond oil was the standard in my house.
42
@Susannah Allanic cloth diapered my kiddo as well, never any diaper rash. Not once. Potty trained at 18 months.the laundry was a piece of cake tbh.
@Susannah Allanic
Huh. For diaper rash, our pediatrician always prescribed an ointment - sorry I cannot recall the name - no powder. When my first child had truly awful 'diaper rash,' he had us *get rid* of cloth diapers and use a genuine prescription ointment - no powder.
3
@Susannah Allanic
And what a gift to the environment to not use all those disposables!
4
I don't understand why everyone hasn't switched to Baby Cornstarch. It has no talc in it, and is sitting right there one the shelf next to the talc. J&J should have stopped making talcum powder long ago, when the first alarms were raised (which I remember happening in the 80s), but as they didn't, at least take advantage of the fact that they make a safe alternative. It's the same substance as the cornstarch in your pantry, just ground finer. It's lovely.
22
@Annie Towne I agree. I used plain cornstarch on my babies in the '70's when this came up then about baby talc causing breathing problems in France. Works great. Mine were in cloth diapers too.
@Annie Towne
Corn starch is an organic material ( in the true sense of the word) it can grow and transfer micro-organisms. It may pose different risks to talcum powder but it still poses risks. Especially if it is not handled and processed perfectly.
4
@Annie Towne Word for word, that is exactly what I was going to write here myself. J+J could have simply kept the Baby Powder brand and used cornstarch instead.
I'm so glad my own mother was not into baby powder. She kept our bottoms rash-free with simple Vaseline.
1
In the mid-70’s I was told by the owner of a health food and personal care coop that Johnson’s talcum powder was processed with asbestos, which is carcinogenic. I immediately stopped using it and warned my mother to do the same but she didn’t. She died from endometrial cancer, and now talcum powder use is one of the indicators of that disease. I wonder how that guy knew (it was in a college town), and I so, so wish that my mom had heeded his warning.
15
This is not a new issue.
As I recall we had a choice between talc and corn starch baby powder 20 years ago. Aware of issues with talc we used corn starch(? - been a long time) - though that had its own issues. ANY fine powder that you inhale can cause problems.
41
@cynicalskeptic I'm confused. Did not J&J get raked over the coals for the dangers of their baby powder with talcum years ago? I thought cornstarch replaced that everywhere. How come the asbestos issue didn't come up when talc was condemned? Why did they continue making "baby powder" in addition to or instead of the cornstarch product?
2
45 years ago as a grad student, I learned that chrysotile, the most common form of asbestos, and talc had exactly the same composition, and that chrysotile is a common contaminant in talc. I never used talc again after that and I do not understand why anyone would use it or market it to the general public.
66
@John Mardinly They do NOT have the exact same composition. If they did they would both be the same thing. One is talc and the other is asbestos.
8
@John Mardinly people heard about the hazards of smoking but did THAT change any minds? REALLY? Even when it was on the pack?
and again, where are the males with problems? or are they JUST IMMUNE? I suspect this amy be a made-up story for money. Law suits are popular and companies often settle. Not that I defend every company that has done wrong. But here we are with a crooked president whose family fees off the taxpayer and hardly a word said. GO figure!
4
@Kevin Crofton
They are pretty closely related and often found together. That's why cross-contamination is such a problem.
1
As a midwife in the early 80s, I knew that talc was bad for the lungs, at least, causing silicosis. It is, after all, ground stone.
I advised my clients to use cron starch instead.
I think it is somewhat misleading to say the problem is with "baby powder". The problem is with *any* powder, baby or otherwise, that is made from talc.
Johnson & Johnson, and other manufacturers, make, and have made, lovely corn starch baby powders that have no talc, is silky smooth, and causes no silicosis.
Please, as a matter of public health, make this distinction in your reporting.
85
@Ellen
Organic dust in the lungs can be as dangerous as mineral dusts; just causes different problems.
5
It’s an odd thought that through so many decades of use and fear being brought to the attention of this company - one that also has a strong hand in the opioid crisis - was not brought to justice any sooner. It will be an interesting sight to watch as many businesses that have monetised their products off of the nativity of so many, then crumble, having done their damage, intentional or otherwise in the name of profits. I can only hope that justice is greater than a few dollars per consumer. Companies should be held accountable on an individual level - limited liability has given the anonymity needed for businesses to profit from the ignorance (unawareness) of others.
18
@Christian Watson are we suing gun mfgrs? or car makers, appliance makers? or you name it. It's just the money and a company protects its reputation by settling.
Most of the drugs ads on tv have a list such a long list of hazards that would seem to disqualify them from being a helpful medicine. I call them HARMACEUTICALS.
2
I wonder why they keep marketing this product - I had thought they fully transitioned to corn starch. J&J is losing consumer confidence and doesn't seem to be acting forcefully.
5
@Nic Apostoleris
I went into a dollar store and a CVS store the other day and saw Zantac on the shelves. I informed them that the product needed to be removed. I went back the next day to see if in Manhattan and Queens store they had done so. The almighty dollar won, everything was the same as it had before. The dollar at the end of the day for Wall Street wins out.
1
Talc and chrysotile have the exact same atomic constituents. Using it is simply playing with fire. When I learned that in grad school, I and everyone I knew made the no-brainer decision to remove baby powder from our lives.
4
When my son was born, in 1987, I somehow learned that baby powder was not good, and used corn starch instead. I support any action against J&J if they knew about this problem and kept it secret. But I have one question: If, in fact, their baby powder was a health hazard, what about the babies who were showered in it? Wouldn't there be a huge surge in ovarian cancer among women whose mothers used it on them as babies? Or other cancers? In boys as well. Lung cancer, for example? I don't know when the product was formulated.....
9
@Mimi Harrison
Stop using logic! Kidding......I agree with you.
Your comment made me curious: how long has baby powder been around? Answer is 125 years. So millions of babies and women have been using baby powder for over 100 years.....and no epidemic of ovarian cancer, which is still
"It is used primarily for cosmetic uses and can help cure diaper rashes and can be used as a deodorant, found in makeup products like eyeshadows as well as many other cosmetic purposes. One of the first items on the market was Johnson & Johnsons baby powder which was created in 1893 and then sold in stores in 1894." https://ifspb.com › history-baby-powder
Stats from American Cancer Society: "This cancer mainly develops in older women. About half of the women who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer are 63 years or older. It is more common in white women than African-American women.
"The rate at which women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer has been slowly falling over the past 20 years."
That history brought me to look at another history: the proliferation of attorneys in the USA:
In 1900, there were 108,000 attorneys in the USA.
In 2019, there are 1,350,000 attorneys in the USA.
Correlation or causation?
5
I majored in Chemistry at Columbia Univ. several years ago. It heightened my awareness of everyday consumer products. At the time it was simple to find that the talcum that was used in Johnson's baby powder was mined near asbestos deposits. Consequently, the baby powder was bound to be deleterious, to say the least, to one's--and one's baby's!--health. Now the best bet for a drying powder is drysuit and wetsuit powder.
7
@Alexandra In freshman chemistry, 1st semester, one learns about solubility. Neither talc nor asbestos are soluble. A chemist should then wonder how an insoluble chemical enters the body at the cellular level to cause any effect. A chemist should also examine the USP (United States Pharmacopeia) and read the monogram for medical grade talc. A chemist should then look for other medical uses of the product.
A chemist will find: Talcum powder as sold by J&J is used as treatment for malignant pleural effusion, a lung condition often caused by lung or breast cancer in which fluid builds up around the lungs.
The USP has a long established record of determining safe limits of 'other chemicals' in pharmaceuticals and has limits on asbestos. A chemist would then determine if the accused product is within those limits. In short, a chemist would perform the tests before opining.
The stunning ignorance of the layperson that is preyed upon by a cohort of attorneys is unhelpful in every respect. This same irrational mentality resulted in the destruction of Dow-Corning over the bogus claims of silicone causing breast cancer. We see the same controversy over glyphosate.
In everything there is a potential for harm, but in chemistry one should be rational and recognize this fact: Potential for harm is a function of exposure. (Ex. table salt, sodium chloride also has great potential to kill you, IF consumed in excessive quantities.)
3
It might be worthwhile to emphasize that these concerns evidently do not apply to cornstarch-based baby powder, sold widely under many brands.
5
No one I know has used baby powder with talc since 1985. We have used corn starch and mostly JNJ baby cornstarch. I am surprised that they have been selling talc all this time.
8
As a ceramicist for over 50 years, I learned early on in our chemistry that talc is an asbestos bearing material. While I wondered at the time about J&J's talcum powder, I was sure that they must have figured out how to eliminate the toxic elements since it was used on babies. WOW there it was, common knowledge all this time.
9
Wow. Years ago, my doctor told me not to use baby powder and that its benefits were actually zero.
6
Any responsible company would restart their production if there was an issue with a product that can cause cancer. In this case, that oversight has flown the coop. Despite being "worried", they continue to produce and sell it for profit. None of these executives care nor even bothered to fix the problem. I hope these lawsuits sink the company to the ground.
6
@George Gu
There has been no scientific evidence linking baby powder of any brand to ovarian cancer.
There have been legal cases where attorneys have convinced juries that baby powder of a certain brand - the market-leading brand - was the cause of ovarian cancer.
Could the issues be science on the one hand, sympathy and emotion on the other hand?
3
I never used baby powder on my children because it seemed unnecessary to me - just change the diaper and wash with water after and pat dry. I also wondered why I should expose my baby's lungs to the stuff, having had a mother who produced massive clouds of powder after showering that irritated my airways. I'm now glad to have avoided it - it seemed more a ritual than an actual benefit anyway.
29
@Multimodalmama I think you are absolutely correct: it was a kind of ritual. While I cannot remember seeing this, I have no doubt that we saw it in films or on TV shows.
I never used powder with either of my children. I did not like it, and our marvelous pediatrician always warned against it.
2
This is an important issue. I object to the video. The extreme close-up of hand on flesh is suggestive. Glancing at it (in the way many of us quickly scan words and images) it gave a different impression than the one I think you intended.
3
@Petaltown - Without my glasses on, I thought it was someone making pizza. I saw flour flying everywhere, what looked like a nice dough, and I was just waiting for the rolling pin when you went all Jeffrey Epstein on me.
1
It's an oddly disturbing image, especially after reading the recent article in the Times about the dark web.
2
Years ago, when I had babies, I read enough articles warning about the dangers of baby powder, to swear off completely. That was 40 years ago.
24
Why use talc? The talc itself can be a respiratory irritant, and the scent is doing anyone any good. Cornstarch is both more effective and less irritating.
5
Sorry, I can't see a place to edit one's own comments-- of course I meant "the scent isn't doing anyone any good."
1
Sometime in the 80s I just happened to see a British medical professor on tv who was being interviewed about something else, but who brought up the subject of talc and it’s possible cancer causing properties. He said specifically that he believed women should not use talc because of the danger of ovarian cancer. He was quickly shut down, but I never forgot it and immediately switched to cornstarch powder. I’m very glad I heeded what he said.
12
Why didn’t you answer the most obvious question, which is: How could asbestos have ended up in the powder?
5
@Need More Info
The mineral 'talc' is often found in association with a common form of asbestos. It is difficult to completely separate the two if they are associated. However the level of contamination (of the baby powder) has never been spelled out; there are workplace safety standards and if they were met the powder could have been considered safe. And the risks, if any, would have been focussed on inhaled particles not topically applied.
1
@Need More Info
I thought that as well. I want more info.
1
@Need More Info
We tried to answer that question in our episode of “The Weekly,” but here’s a more detailed explanation: Asbestos contamination of talc, when it occurs, is inadvertent. Talc is a mineral that is mined from the earth. It often develops near underground deposits of other minerals that form under similar geological conditions, including some that are classified as asbestos or may be in the form of asbestos. In these areas, Bradley Van Gosen, a research geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver, said, “You’re mining talc, but asbestos comes along for the ride.”
Johnson & Johnson routinely tests its talc and says it is safe. The company has said its raw talc comes from mines that are free from asbestos.
Inevitably some people will develop cancer. Some came into contact with baby powder. What's the evidence that the baby powder actually caused the cancer? Didn't millions of people use baby powder and not develop cancer?
51
It is my understanding talc has been found in ovarian tumors.
7
@MIKEinNYC You have a good point about causation, but if we know that some substance - especially an entirely unnecessary one - might be carcinogenic, we should not use it or market it.
8
@MIKEinNYC You'd make a fine epidemiologist, MIKE. Not only do the numbers need to show a strong association between use of baby powder and a specific malignancy, but even if they do, an association does not necessarily mean a causal relationship. One needs a controlled clinical trial for that.
9
is asbestos found in all talcum powders on the market or exclusively in J&J talcum powder?
4
@samir el khoury
If it is present in one, it is most likely present in all.
I postulate that the highest levels will be found in powder imported from sources such as China and India.
1
I returned from Christmas vacation to my apartment in college in 1980. I used to powder myself daily, on my rear, etc as a deterrent to a feeling of excess moisture in my underwear, powder kept me dry and feeling fresh. But my college roommate immediately informed me that her friend's younger sister died over the vacation. She had ovarian cancer and the doctor said it could have been brought on by the talcum powder she used for years in her pants. I stopped my daily regime that day. It is said to see something only now being done after 40 years. This has been known, but not adequately shared. Advertising and big business win instead. Sad.
4
As the third line of your article suggestions, people have been using Johnson & Johnson baby powder for "mover than a century".
Most likely it has been used repeatedly on billions of babies.
Now suddenly the powder causes cancer. How many of these babies have developed cancer.
15
@esp If you care to read the other comments you‘ll find there‘s nothing sudden about it.
@esp Baby powder used on babies probably doesn't migrate into the body because baby girls don't menstruate or use tampons or diaphragms--the means of transport for the powder particles.
@esp Maybe you could start by reading the article. Not “suddenly now” at all.
3
My eldest child is 52. Even then, his pediatrician knew that baby powder was not safe for use on babies.
6
@Brenda Snow
Pediatricians are like internet 'influencers', they have fads. Google the Truby King method for an example.
1
My mother in law died of ovarian cancer more than 25 years ago. When they went in to remove her ovaries the doctor said she had dozens of growths filled with white powder... she used baby powder all her life!
8
@Kevin Bitz Condolences to your family, it’s a horrid disease. Ovarian cancer has deeply affected several members of our family. Questions: How old was she when diagnosed? Did she use it as a feminine hygiene product? How often was the powder applied? And, did she have the dreaded ‘BRCA’ gene, which predisposes one to those horrid cancers? Our family members never used powder, but were age 80+ And had the ‘bad gene’ when diagnosed.
Concerns and knowledge of possible asbestos contamination of talcum powder, especially of Johnson & Johnson's because of its wide use, was out there in 1980 when I had my daughter. Why does it take industry so long to acknowledge and respond to these concerns? Oh. Greed. I keep forgetting.
33
Under the current administration, all of the agencies that were originally created to protect the public from criminals, such as the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, are now mandated to protect the criminals from the public. With that in mind, and given the leanings of some of the courts, these investigations are nigh on guaranteed to turn up nothing.
4
Avoid using or consuming anything made by a big corporation. They don’t make things that are good for us
2
@Eric: kinda limits things a bit, don't you think?
1
@Eric
Yikes. That's quite a stretch: from 'this corp might have promoted something bad for us' to 'all corporation-promoted things are bad for us'
Also, do you have any criteria for what counts as a "big corporation"? Are small corporations ok? My neighbor who sells stuff out of his barn?
If asbestos were as hazardous in the minute levels ambulance chasing attorneys claim, ALL backyard auto mechaincs and all professional one who performed brake shoe replacements prior to the mid-1970s (asbestos was removed) would now have cancer.
If the level of asbestos in talcum powder were as potent as this same group claims, its use as an absorbent placed into and then flushed from the chest cavity as a treatment for some lung diseases.
Ignorance and greed. . .that is THE problem.
10
@Jim
Some mechanics in brake shops have indeed suffered from lung cancer. The incidence related to the type of asbestos in the brake shoes.
1
@Jim Those exposed to brake lines in the past did die, including my step dad (died in 1992) who was a manager in the trucking business and knew he was exposed to asbestos and also knew he was stubborn and failed to wear a face mask for protection. OSHA should have and most likely has made rules and regs that workers ignore to their peril. Breathing asbestos for any reason is hazardous and that includes baby powder.
2
@Jim Are you claiming that asbestos or talc which contains asbestos is used in lungs? Because, that is just nonsense.
The trouble with this type of reporting is that the press engages in a type “catch and release”. An issue is identified and then dropped as it moves to the next headline. You need to remain on topic and always assume that some people are coming to the topic for the first time, therefore, you should indicate how is “asbestos” labeled in talcum powder or any other products.
The NYT should do a piece and maintain a database of all products that the Trump Administration have or plan to deregulate that endangers the public’ health.
10
Why only President Trump? Why not go back to Jimmy Carter’s Admin since the one time peanut farmer has contributed to children’s health issues with his peanuts...
@MDCooks8 Good grief, Carter was President nearly 50 years ago! Get your head out of Hate radio and catch up — Trump and the GOP are causing totally avoidable, serious problems for all of us right NOW.
Asbestos, tobacco, lead, DDT, All these huge industries fought in vain for decades to escape the truth, that their products cause sickness and death. Talcum powder now will go the same way. After lawyers make billions and families suffer for years waiting for justice. We could have been using corn starch this whole time and saved a lot of agony.
1
@Dave: Lead, tobacco & asbestos are proven toxins when absorbed in a level that has been proven in lab animals to cause toxic effects. That level is never reported leading the public to believe that even a 'sniff' will cause irreparable damage to health.
Specific talc: Talc is mined and there often are small deposits of asbestos in the same vein. Talc in J&J powder comply with US Pharmacopeia (srach USP monogram for talc). You will find that BOTH lead and asbestos have strict limitations that research, upon with the USP bases it's limits, is based. Asbestos is limited at stands 5 micometers long with widths ranging from 20:1 to 100:1 ratio.
The same talcum powder is used in treating certain lung infections.
Does it cause cancer at the level found in J&J talcum powder. . .NO. But, is there an association between asbestos & cancer, yes. However, without adequate exposure one is safe from harm.
And if you telephone them about their former 'cornstarch' powder, now deceptively labelled
Johnson's aloe & vitamin e POWDER "with natural cornstarch" -- if you phone them to ask what that "with" means, and what else is in the mix -- they LIE and say the powder is "all cornstarch." -- But they changed the labelling about two years ago.
Liars.
Sue them.
7
This is quite scary; especially for people who have used baby powder their entire lives. My mother had cancerous tumors removed from her breasts starting in her 30's. When she was in her 50's, she had radical masectomies. Both of her breast were removed, as a "preventative measure", even though all tumors were benign. She even had one removed when she was 85 or so. Ultimately, she lived to age 96. I am very grateful; I also truly hope J & J Baby Powder had nothing to do with it.
1
Don’t use Talc on your baby! No earthly reason to do so. Just don’t do it.
7
Oh, maybe that question is answered in the video. Didn’t realize the article was tied to a short film.
@Need More Info actually, it’s in the article. But you’d have to read it.
What’s the difference between the basic powder and what they call corn starch?
1
Where is the actual science analyzing the contents of 100 containers of J&J powder? To the NYT, go buy a hundred samples from stores across the country and have them analyzed. Yes, it will only show whether there is any asbestos in the product now but it a data point worth knowing.
17
A fact never mentioned is that babies who are dusted with this brand of talcum powder NEVER burst into flame. Coincidence?
5
I think ANY foreign particulate matter released into the air has the potential to cause harm.
11
@chucks77
Tobacco smoke is one of the most dangerous foreign particulate matter products.
Marijuana smoke is right up there in the list of dangerous foreign particulate matter products.
Along with vaping, the users pull these products into their lungs.......and certainly all the products have caused harm.
1
Many perfumes can cause breathing issues for people. Has there ever been a study linking these products to any cancers or others health issues?
@chucks77
You mean like pollen and incense?
2
In all the reporting about talc, I've never heard contraceptive diaphragms mentioned. All doctors tell you to clean the diaphragm after use, then dust it with talcum powder. And get some sort of cancer in your cervix, ovaries or uterus? For years I did this, using the diaphragm because it was the least invasive method I could control myself (as compared to condoms,I mean).
With all the new awareness about talc and cancer in babies, I must wonder if these possible links have been explored in women. Ovarian cancer is usually not detected until it's at its final stages. Ask Obama about his mom.
16
It begs the question, why do we use products that are not essential? Babies are perfect beings with very basic needs. We are satisfying something in us when we buy non-essentials for our babies.
1
@NotDeadYet
If this was the link it would explain the small number of cancers versus the number of users of baby powder.
Diaphragms were little used in Australia, so I was unaware of the medical advice. This is almost the only mechanism I have heard of which would defeat the normal protective mechanisms of the human body.
Do not sue J&J, sue the doctors!