BREAKING NEWS : Hank Aaron, baseball legend and former home run king, dies at 86 Full Story

Is baby powder dangerous?​

Thousands of people in the U.S. have filed lawsuits claiming baby powder gave them cancer, but the scientific community is still unsure.

Posted: Apr 12, 2018 1:36 PM
Updated: Apr 12, 2018 1:36 PM

With yet another eye-popping talcum powder verdict against Johnson & Johnson, the healthcare product giant is making the headlines. I last wrote about the issue in 2016, in a column (which appears below this update) about a ruling against Johnson & Johnson related to a claim that the powder caused ovarian cancer.

But in this new verdict, reached last week, a New Jersey jury agreed with a man suffering from mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer, that the baby powder he'd used for decades was to blame. The jury awarded him $30 million in compensatory damages and his wife $7 million in damages.

Americans' use of talcum powder has dropped off precipitously since the early 1980s, and the continuing legal battles over its links to cancer will ensure that trend continues. Johnson & Johnson is offering a cornstarch alternative, while vigorously attempting to defend itself from an onslaught of lawsuits, with few successes. Johnson & Johnson vehemently denies that its powder has anything to do with cancer.

The naturally occurring mineral compounds we call talc can sometimes be contaminated with asbestos, another group of minerals that are undisputed carcinogens. American talc products have had no detectible asbestos in testing for many decades now, but the scientific controversy over whether "pure" forms of talc can kick off cancers of the ovaries and lungs continues.

Most of the research is of a sometimes frustrating variety of "epidemiological" work where medical researchers try to compare similar groups of people who have just one important difference, like daily baby powder use, or working in a talc mine.

It's not ethical or even technically feasible to perform more direct forms of research on humans about the effects of a suspected carcinogen. Taiwanese researchers recently tabulated data from 14 such studies that looked at talc miners, finding a link between pure talc and lung cancer.

They made a point to include Chinese research that had been excluded in other studies, such as one published by employees of ChemRisk, a firm that is helping the talc industry defend itself from these product liability lawsuits.

Another group of scientists from Australia recently evaluated 27 studies looking for links between ovarian cancer and talc, concluding that women who use talc on their genital areas face "a 24%--39% increased risk of ovarian cancer."

While the lawsuits rage on, an agency charged with making clear determinations on the carcinogenicity of consumer products hasn't stepped up to the plate. The United States National Toxicology Program didn't add talc to its 2005 Congressional Report on Carcinogens despite meetings concluding that women's use of talc in the genital area is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen," and while they couldn't determine if talc caused lung cancer too, they did agree it remains in the lungs for years.

The bottom line: You'll keep seeing these headlines. I hope these lawsuits will convince the consumer products industry to openly share what it knows, when it knows it, about the potential dangers of what it's selling.

----------------

Original column, published May 3, 2016:

Does talcum powder — powder that many have slathered on babies for generations -- really cause cancer?

There are more than 1,000 women lined up to sue Johnson & Johnson over just that: cancer diagnoses they attribute to the company's talcum powder products.

In early 2016, a St. Louis jury ordered the company to pay $55 million to a South Dakota woman who had used talcum powder for years and has ovarian cancer.

But why did it take rainmaker attorneys to educate a jury from square one all the way to the point of ringing up a jackpot verdict? Johnson & Johnson positioned itself well as their target: Even though scientists have been publishing concerning studies for years, the company didn't forthrightly warn its customers there could be a major safety issue.

Talcum powder also managed to escape the oversight of federal agencies many consumers might imagine are always on high alert, surveilling the published literature for product safety concerns.

So what's the big problem with a product millions of people have considered so safe they put it on babies during diaper change?

The theory is that talcum powder, when applied in the genital region, manages to work its way up through the vagina, the cervix, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and into the ovaries.

The female reproductive system has, after all, evolved to facilitate the upward mobility of sperm in order to fertilize eggs that have descended into the uterus, and the microscopic particles of talcum powder may well keep traveling all the way up.

Indeed, doctors have identified talc particles inside cancerous ovarian tissue. Talc has also been found in pelvic lymph nodes, indicating that it made it all the way out of the fallopian tubes and into the abdominal space.

In 2013, Deane Berg of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, was the first woman diagnosed with ovarian cancer to take on the medical and consumer products giant.

She came away without a dime awarded to her even though she won her suit; instead of awarding monetary damages the jury told Johnson & Johnson that it should affix a warning to its talc products like Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, one that says the product could cause cancer.

And Berg's lawsuit laid historic legal groundwork: The company will now have to pay a combined $127 million in damages awarded in two cases by St. Louis juries this year if its appeals aren't successful.

In the Berg lawsuit, Brigham and Women's Hospital obstetrician and gynecologist Dr. Daniel Cramer testified to his opinion that upwards of 10,000 women a year are developing ovarian cancer in part due to their use of talcum powder.

Pathologist Dr. John Godleski, also at Brigham, found talc particles inside Berg's ovarian tumor tissue.

I don't have records from the two St. Louis cases where juries have penalized Johnson & Johnson with megamillion-dollar awards to the plaintiffs, but I'd expect those juries saw similar evidence to what Berg presented in 2013.

In fact, Cramer and his colleagues at Brigham just published a large study looking back at over 2,000 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer and comparing their use of talcum powder with that of a similar group of women who didn't have ovarian cancer.

In showing a strong link between talc use and ovarian cancer, a 33% higher risk overall, the Brigham group specifically faulted another large study published in 2014 that didn't identify a risk. That study, Cramer wrote, didn't look at premenopausal women who seem to be at higher risk, and didn't properly weigh the role of estrogen use, which seems to be a necessary ingredient in upping the risk for ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women.

The medical debate over whether talcum powder causes ovarian cancer goes back many decades, and the attorneys in these cases are demonstrating, through internal documents they've subpoenaed, that Johnson & Johnson knew about this research.

They allege that Johnson & Johnson is akin to the tobacco companies that knew about research linking smoking to lung cancer but kept this information from the public and fought off attempts to regulate their product.

I don't think Johnson & Johnson deserves quite the opprobrium we reserve for the tobacco companies, since conflicting research did exist, but they and companies like them are setting themselves up for these kinds of lawsuits if they're not open and transparent with consumers.

A smarter approach would have been to acknowledge the worrisome research studies in their consumer literature, on their websites, and to have flagged customers somehow on their product labeling to review this material with their doctors and decide for themselves whether and how to use the products.

But it's not all Johnson & Johnson's responsibility. Federal agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Consumer Products Safety Commission need the authority and the funding to keep up with reported and published adverse effects of all consumer products, and actively weigh when mandatory warnings are necessary.

Companies should welcome the federal agencies taking off some of the load -- Johnson & Johnson could have shared some of its liability with such an agency by regularly checking in about how it should act, or what warning it should issue, in light of recent research.

We have a problem when it falls to trial juries to weigh the scientific data on a given product against a particular medical case and decide whether a company should be adding warning labels, or paying out large sums in the hopes the companies will learn a lesson.

That's one way to get the job done, but it's after the fact, it's messy, and it's prone to error and excess. We can expect that appeals will significantly reduce these headline-grabbing jury awards.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion. Read CNNOpinion's Flipboard magazine.

Indiana Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 601937

Reported Deaths: 9593
CountyCasesDeaths
Marion831111322
Lake44972678
Allen32498545
Hamilton29039315
St. Joseph27133380
Elkhart24291343
Vanderburgh19160246
Tippecanoe17799130
Johnson14871292
Porter14631167
Hendricks14188247
Madison10851219
Vigo10636178
Clark10520137
Monroe9299110
Delaware9055134
LaPorte8972160
Howard8134142
Kosciusko800382
Warrick665197
Hancock6575103
Bartholomew637999
Floyd6322109
Wayne6076161
Grant5937113
Dubois552578
Boone544967
Morgan530594
Henry503464
Marshall499884
Cass478663
Dearborn470745
Noble468357
Jackson420747
Shelby410781
Lawrence387478
Clinton370642
Gibson365559
DeKalb344264
Montgomery340754
Harrison340544
Knox333139
Miami317344
Steuben311545
Whitley301725
Wabash299747
Adams299035
Ripley296545
Putnam292049
Huntington288659
Jasper287634
White270340
Daviess266073
Jefferson257938
Fayette245148
Decatur244883
Greene238162
Posey236927
Wells233350
LaGrange226361
Scott221838
Clay220932
Randolph212148
Jennings195836
Sullivan190833
Spencer188019
Fountain182127
Washington182022
Starke174443
Jay166322
Owen162837
Fulton162330
Orange156333
Carroll155415
Rush153318
Perry151227
Vermillion147334
Franklin146933
Tipton130932
Parke13018
Pike115626
Blackford110522
Pulaski96137
Newton90521
Brown86833
Benton85910
Crawford7839
Martin72313
Warren6757
Switzerland6455
Union6227
Ohio4787
Unassigned0375

Ohio Coronavirus Cases

Data is updated nightly.

Cases: 849704

Reported Deaths: 10518
CountyCasesDeaths
Franklin100046706
Cuyahoga845231068
Hamilton63092447
Montgomery42660405
Summit34405754
Lucas31041611
Butler30546229
Stark25443429
Warren19436140
Lorain18767223
Mahoning17163337
Lake15882153
Clermont15697110
Delaware1422678
Licking13067137
Trumbull12680313
Fairfield1262180
Greene11915136
Medina11439167
Clark10802265
Wood10230158
Allen9774126
Portage9163107
Miami907373
Richland9035117
Marion7420113
Tuscarawas7280179
Columbiana7263124
Pickaway719550
Wayne6954169
Muskingum690741
Erie6090127
Hancock547590
Ross543487
Scioto533664
Geauga501155
Darke465591
Ashtabula449373
Lawrence447053
Union444928
Sandusky433062
Mercer432088
Huron423541
Seneca423465
Auglaize419662
Shelby419421
Jefferson415469
Belmont411240
Washington383340
Athens37379
Putnam372674
Madison349929
Knox347922
Ashland342538
Fulton335243
Defiance327782
Crawford319472
Preble318437
Brown307121
Logan304132
Ottawa289243
Clinton286643
Williams275866
Highland271818
Jackson261345
Guernsey249825
Champaign249328
Fayette234429
Morrow23014
Perry228318
Holmes222864
Henry216849
Hardin210133
Coshocton203521
Van Wert200545
Gallia194726
Wyandot193851
Pike172417
Adams172015
Hocking169824
Carroll153216
Paulding143221
Noble119940
Meigs106823
Monroe100331
Harrison87821
Morgan82229
Vinton68913
Unassigned00
Fort Wayne
Cloudy
26° wxIcon
Hi: 27° Lo: 26°
Feels Like: 16°
Angola
Cloudy
23° wxIcon
Hi: 24° Lo: 22°
Feels Like: 12°
Huntington
Cloudy
28° wxIcon
Hi: 26° Lo: 25°
Feels Like: 18°
Fort Wayne
Cloudy
26° wxIcon
Hi: 28° Lo: 27°
Feels Like: 16°
Lima
Cloudy
28° wxIcon
Hi: 29° Lo: 28°
Feels Like: 17°
Colder Friday
WFFT Radar
WFFT Temperatures
WFFT National

Community Events