Keep in mind that in the US juries have an incentive to make judgements against large companies with deep pockets because our health care “system” is so jacked up. The jury has sympathy for the plaintiff, who may have massive, massive bills and debt due to medical costs and no means to pay them off other than a large jury award.
That said - if there is a risk of cancer from talc it’s very low. I don’t think there is a way to prove that a particular case of cancer was caused specifically by talc and talc alone, and I don’t think the association between cancer and talc is as solidly proven as between, say, smoking and cancer.
This is a link to an Australian site called Cancer Council and it repeats what I read last year (year before?) - that there us inconclusive evidence linking talc to cancer. This LA Times article repeats the same.
I’m not saying evidence will never come out saying talc causes cancer, but from what I can tell right now, it isn’t there. So is this a smoking-causes-cancer thing or a vaccines-cause-autism thing or something in between?
You rub it onto your skin, not into. There is no plausible mechanism for your undies to prevent transfer of PM10 from your skin to your pants. And your eyes and sense of touch are hardly good instruments for measuring this transfer.
I didn’t realize you could still buy talcum powder. I thought it had all been removed from the shelves by the time my kids were babies (and my son is eighteen) and replaced with cornstarch.
I have a vague memory of reading this is Our Bodies, Ourselves. Thing is, I’ve owned several editions of the book, and I couldn’t tell you which one had the “use cornstarch, NOT talc” warning. I do remember the earliest one I had was the 1983 edition, which was the one that said that women whose partners weren’t drug users or bisexual probably were safe from HIV. No condom suggestion whatsoever, and no acknowledgement that some women aren’t going to know those things about a partner, because they may just not know him that well, if you get my drift. As hip as the book was about lesbianism, it seemed never to have heard of the one night stand.
I think the last edition I bought was some time around 2000, at which point I’d kind of outgrown it, and didn’t feel an obligation to give the Boston Women’s Health Collective my money anymore.
So there’s a time frame. I think it was probably closer to 1988 than 2000.
Personally, I’ve never used anything but foot powder. On my feet.
We have some parents who give us powder to put on their kids during diaper changes at the preschool where I work. Disappears after one pee. Creme or ointment is way better.
[QUOTE=Broomstick;19737029I don’t think there is a way to prove that a particular case of cancer was caused specifically by talc and talc alone, and I don’t think the association between cancer and talc is as solidly proven as between, say, smoking and cancer.[/QUOTE]
In the case of Deane Berg, doctors were able to cut out her cancer and look at it. Three doctors swore that the cause of her cancer was talc, based on the finding of talc particles embedded in the tissues. Interestingly enough, while the jury in her case found that J&J was negligent, they were not part of a conspiracy, and they did not have liability. She won no financial damages.
I can’t find any information about the evidence presented in the other three cases I know of that have won damages. Were they based on individual examination of their cancers, or just speculation that the talc might have caused the cancer? Don’t know.
The two class action lawsuits that have been brought against J&J are both headed by women who don’t actually have cancer, but feel that they should have been warned that they’ve put themselves at increased risk of cancer by using talc.
I think it’s not in the baby sections of stores-- I recall seeing products back in 2006, when my son was a baby, that specified “NO TALC”-- but you can still buy it. You can get it on Amazon. It seems to be mostly in foot powders, but I did see it in one aftershave. I suspect it probably isn’t a good idea around any orifice.
It looks like much of the female talc marketed products are imports. The second biggest market looks to be “manly sports talc” - including one called “Fresh Balls” - I suspect not much cervical cancer risk to its users. Then a very small U.S. brand ladies talc presence.
I haven’t used talc for years - although I loved it and remember being sad when I couldn’t find it - pre-internet days - cornstarch really isn’t the same. So I’ve known about it - and its been hard to find on your basic Target/Walgreens shelf - since the late 90s.
I learned of the connection between talc and cancer six years ago. I had been reading about silicosis on wikipedia, and somehow landed on an article about the 1971 British study which showed talc particles embeded in ovarian tumors.
My mother was a big proponent of keeping things “fresh” down there. I have way too vidid memories of her douching and powdering herself (no, my mother isn’t a private person). Recently I learned that her anxieties about being a “stinky woman” might have been culturally-induced and then exacerbated by corporate marketing.
IANA woman nor a parent. This thread is literally the first I’ve heard of anything adverse about talc.
My point is *not *that I’m right and y’all and those juries are wrong.
But rather that it’s pretty easy for many people to not have heard of whatever dire warnings there may be now or have been over the last umpteen years.
Here’s an interesting Straight Dope article from 1990. That’s when I first heard about this issue:
This article concludes that “asbestos contaminants in talc are the real culprit.”
If you go up to post 3 by nofloyd, you’ll see that a more recent study stated:
“early studies hypothesized that asbestos contamination of talc may have a causal role in ovarian carcinogenesis, later case-control studies reporting use after cosmetic products became asbestos-free in the United States continued to show associations.”
I believe I read the Straight Dope article in one of the books. I remember being very alarmed by it, “bath powder” was very popular when I was growing up.
So let’s blame dead cancer victims instead of giant, carcinogen-hawking, billion-dollar corporations? That’s a winning idea, there, why don’t you run with it?
So if the class action leaders don’t have cancer, what loss are they claiming for? Mere exposure to a risk that didn’t come to pass is hardly a sound basis for a law suit unless they had massive psychological consequences, and if they did, causation would still have to be established - their overreaction to a cancer that didn’t happen is their problem not Jand J’s (as J and J’s lawyers would say).
They may be considered “high risk” for no other reason than previous use of talc, and subject to monitoring by yearly tests, possibly even including biopsies, that they would not be subject to if they were “low risk,” which their lifestyle and family histories would otherwise make them.
BTW: I looked at some of the powders we use in the preschool, a provided by the parents, and labeled with each child’s name, to be used on that specific child, and a few did list talc as an ingredient. :eek: