Skip to main content

Is Johnson & Johnson's baby powder safe to use?

Is baby powder safe to use? Image credit. YouTube
The likely reason you are reading this post is because you have come across the news about courts in the United States (US) ordering multinational company Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to payout millions to litigants over the past few months. So far, there are three separate verdicts in US based courts that have associated J&J's baby powder with ovarian cancer. While official statements from the company have said that these verdicts will be challenged in the higher court, there are over 1000 such lawsuits that are pending in the courts and litigants and their legal counselors are waiting to get similar verdicts in the future.
The gist of all three verdicts is that the all complainants or litigants were users of J &J's talcum powder for two to three decades to keep their genital region dry and odorless and developed ovarian cancer. The complaint also said that the company was well aware of the risks that the talcum powder carried and the company failed to notify the users of potential hazards.

Ovarian Cancer
Pictoral representation of ovarian cancer.
Image credit: Genetics Home Reference (GHR)
While court verdicts always come with a lot of legal jargon, technicality and other subtleties, the major question remains is usage of the company's talcum powder actually carcinogenic? Does is cause ovarian cancer? And should we continue to use the powder on children as the cases progress?
To answer these questions we need to go back in the past the first studies came out linking ovarian cancer with use of talcum powder. It all began in 1971 when Henderson et al reported finding talc in human ovarian cancer tissue. Back then, laboratory and surgical gloves were dusted with talcum powder to keep them from sticking to each other and to their inner walls and therefore the authors followed up their initial report with a short publication in 1979 in the Lancet reaffirming that the talc they found in the tissue was for real and not a result of contamination. Ovarian cancer was still fairly new then, its aetiology was unknown and everything that a patient came in contact with was a suspect. It is interesting to note that the Lancet report does end saying that regular talcum powder usage/ exposure would not lead to cancer. Needless to say, this was a preliminary report, almost 50 years ago.



The reason why talc was a big deal in this paper was because of the potentially harmful effects it can have on the human cells. First and foremost, talc, a mineral of magnesium and silicon, needs to be mined and can found be found with the infamous, asbestos. In order to be approved for regular use, talc needs to be purified of the asbestos, after which it can be used for a wide variety of applications, starting with talcum powder, ceramics, paper making and even food.
A block of talc
Image credit: Wikipedia

Effect of talc on human health, and especially cancer, has been a topic of study even after 1979 paper but has also been used in sterile form as treatment for pleural effusions, even before 1970. This 1988 report studied various environmental factors that women with ovarian cancers were exposed to and found that women using talcum powder on their genital area to keep it dry / odorless had a relative risk of 1.4 of getting ovarian cancer, which is almost the same as that of any other woman, whether she uses talcum powder or not. The same study also found that women who drank coffee for 40 years or more were 3.4 more likely to get ovarian cancer when compared to women who never had coffee (but so far, we have not heard of anybody suing Starbucks or Costa Coffee for causing ovarian cancer). Interestingly, IARC lists, talc and coffee in the same category of potentially carcinogenic substances for which conclusive evidence is not available.
Evidence for the link between talc and cancer comes from the 1993 toxicology report carried out under National Toxicology Program with the aim to determine the risk of exposure to talc as an occupational hazard. For the study, various groups of rats were exposed to various concentrations of talc aerosols (which did not contain asbestos) for prolonged periods. At the end of the study, multiple rat groups were found to develop various ailments of the lungs and respiratory tract, including cancer, but not anywhere else and definitely not ovarian cancer.
Many clinicians/ physicians are aware of the risk associated with inhalation of talc over prolonged periods and therefore advice against exposure of infants to talcum powder (a segment where J&J is extremely popular choice). But nobody is actually doing it to avoid cancer in children.
There are reports where usage of talcum powder has been associated with low to moderate increase in risk of ovarian cancer. Like the 1992 report that put women using talcum powder in the genital area a risk ratio of 2.8 if they had made 10,000 or more applications of talcum powder during their ovulating years. However, this applied to only 14% of women who had ovarian cancer, leaving a major chunk of explaining to do for the causative agent in rest of the women.
While there are many other studies attribute using talcum powder to increased risk of getting ovarian cancer, what one must realize is the difference between, "increasing your risk" to "actually causing cancer". Talc is not classified as a carcinogen, it does not cause cancer by itself. Yes, it may increase your chance of getting cancer, but so does coffee (like we mentioned earlier).
If we really want to know if talc causes cancer, we need to study its effect in a clinical trial like setting, where we test the effect of the substance over a long term use. To do this, we actually need to register people to use the talcum powder and check how many people get cancer. But such a study involving human subjects would never be approved by a ethics committee. Although, mothers of neonates are doing this everyday, the usage of talcum powder would stop immediately, if they were informed of the main idea behind collecting such data from them. Would you use a product on your child even if it had the remotest chance of giving your child cancer in the future?

Clinical trial in children. Image credit: austrials.com.au


This is probably also the greatest hurdle in unearthing the fact about talcum usage and cancer. All studies on this topic are retrospective and basically involve asking participants particular questions to determine if they had anything in common, prior to the development of their disease. Although, researcher take extreme care to avoid misleading their subjects, there is a recollection bias among patients, looking to link their current condition to past habits, which usually results in increased risk ratios. This is also why major cancer research institutes are not taking a side on this matter because there is no clarity, if talc merely increases your risk or is actually the causative agent of cancer. From the studies that we have looked into so far, it does not look like talc is the culprit here, but scientific research is always looking for more information and the story might change in the future, as we understand the disease better. But even if that were the case, why single just one talcum powder manufacturer out. All other manufacturer's or users of talc in their products should also be dragged to court.
There is also the legal obligation of the company using such a product to inform its users about the potential hazards of the product contents and this is where J&J seems to have lost ground. Instead of putting a warning label on its product and completing its formal responsibility, the company has chosen to stand with the scientific data that it possesses, which is also nice to see. In my opinion, merely labeling a product as potentially harmful is not simply not enough. We have seen it with cigarettes and alcohol. Labeling, even with disturbing pictures of cancerous tissue is not enough to stop people from indulging into these products and labeling its product would just have been an easy way out. Instead, it would be nice to see J&J submit further data to support their beliefs and move forward scientifically.

As for the original question asked in this blog post, Johnson and Johnson's baby powder is as safe as any other talcum powder you might pick from a supermarket.

References: 



  • Henderson WJ, Joslin CA, Turnbull AC, & Griffiths K (1971). Talc and carcinoma of the ovary and cervix. The Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of the British Commonwealth, 78 (3), 266-72 PMID: 5558843
  • Henderson WJ, Hamilton TC, & Griffiths K (1979). Talc in normal and malignant ovarian tissue. Lancet (London, England), 1 (8114) PMID: 85089 
  • Whittemore AS, Wu ML, Paffenbarger RS Jr, Sarles DL, Kampert JB, Grosser S, Jung DL, Ballon S, & Hendrickson M (1988). Personal and environmental characteristics related to epithelial ovarian cancer. II. Exposures to talcum powder, tobacco, alcohol, and coffee. American journal of epidemiology, 128 (6), 1228-40 PMID: 3195564 
  • National Toxicology Program . (1993). NTP Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Talc (CAS No. 14807-96-6)(Non-Asbestiform) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies). National Toxicology Program technical report series, 421, 1-287 PMID: 12616290
  • Harlow BL, Cramer DW, Bell DA, & Welch WR (1992). Perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer risk. Obstetrics and gynecology, 80 (1), 19-26 PMID: 1603491

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do free energy magnetic motors really work?

The internet is rife with websites that promote generators that are capable of providing electricity without using any fuel. Built largely with magnets, these 'free energy generators' promise to cut your electricity bills and provide a much greener alternative to the electricity that is largely generated out of fossil fuels. Elaborate videos that give you estimates of how much money you can save without revealing any details of how to go about it, manage to keep the audience hooked on for a while, but $40 price tag, the loads of freebies and the instant $10 discount for not leaving the page, make the product and its seller highly suspicious. So, we decided to find out if these free energy magnetic motors really work?



The Principle

The magnetic motor works on the simple principle that we all already know, 'Like poles repel each other while opposite poles attract each other'. By arranging the magnets in a fashion where only like poles face each other, one can simply set t…

Generating electricity from flapping tree leaves

As kids, you might have spent many afternoons, under a huge tree, enjoying its shade. In a tropical country like India, trees are a welcome sight in the month of May, when the sun is blazing in the sky and the shade offered by them is a hundred thousand times better than artificial cooling of the air conditioning units. But never in our dream would we have thought that the rustling of the tiny leaves of the trees could one day make electricity for us.Because that requires a Hendersonian moment! (just in a bit)

This brilliant idea has come from the lab of a biophysicist at Iowa State University, Dr. Michael McCloskey, whose work at the University largely involves the study of membrane transport in algae and adult born neurons but also has a background in plant sciences. It was his colleague in the department of genetics, Dr. Eric Henderson who first came up with this plan of harvesting energy from leaves as he wondered how much kinetic energy was being generated when winds blow across l…

5 things driverless cars will do to change our future?

The race for building the world’s first commercially available driverless car is on. Google seems to be leading the pack and in its own charismatic style has been very open about it. Elon Musk’s Tesla is considered the second best with their cars having almost automated the driving process. Tech favourites, Apple also seem to be in the race but everything is under wraps, as of now, and there is not even a hint of what Apple is planning to make, the car, the software or simply make the car accessible with your Apple ID.
Once part of science fiction, driverless cars will soon be a part of our lives and with major automobile manufacturers such as General Motors, Toyota, Ford investing in the technology, prototypes of driverless cars will soon be seen on the roads. Before we get there, a quick review.
The Driverless car
The concept of automated driving has been around for close to a century but progress was slow due to unavailability of technology. For a car to be autonomous, it needs to kno…

Solar cells that work in rain

In case you have read my last month’s guest post about harvesting solar energy in rust, you would be delighted to know that there has been yet another breakthrough in our attempt to harness solar energy.  For many years, solar energy has been targeted for being unavailable at night and during rains. The problem of utilizing solar energy at night can be resolved with the help of metal oxide cells as elaborated in my above post (do read it, if you have not done so already). And now researchers at the Ocean University in China have addressed the second problem and developed solar cells that can actually use rain drops to generate electricity.
Published in the German journal Angewandte Chemie, the paper titled, A Solar Cell Triggered by Sun and Rain, opens a new realm of possibilities when harnessing solar energy. Coating the solar cell with a thin film of graphene allows the cell to function even when it is raining. Graphene is nothing but reduced form of graphite that consists of a hone…

Why Sci-Hub’s story is so crucial to science?

On the 28th of October 2015, Judge Robert Sweet in his ruling at the New York district court declared that the website www.sci-hub.org be blocked with immediate effect and managed to stop hundreds and thousands of researchers and science enthusiasts from accessing the holy grail of today’s science, the research paper.
What should be a simple means to communicate to the world one’s research findings, has become a currency of some sort. A ticket to a researcher’s professional success, a magnet for an investigator to attract funding for his lab and the elusive piece of the puzzle that the publishing group can hold you ransom for, until you cough up some good cash ($30 or above for a single article and thousands of dollars for a bundled annual subscription)
What Judge Sweet termed as a “disservice (to) public interest”, is actually a small website that allows you access to scientific research, old and new, and for free. Sci- Hub. Org, started in 2011, as a trusted place to access research …