You’ve probably seen the commercials — lawyers looking somber, urging anyone who used Johnson & Johnson talc products and went on to develop a lung or gynecologic cancer to get in touch about suing the company. Now, after decades and thousands of lawsuits alleging the products caused cancer, Johnson & Johnson has decided to pull its talc-based baby powder from shelves in the U.S. The company will instead only sell a cornstarch-based baby powder. However, J&J never admitted fault — in fact, the company is still maintaining that there’s no proof that their baby powder is linked to any form of cancer.
In the company’s announcement that it would be discontinuing the baby powder, it states that, “Demand for talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder in North America has been declining due in large part to changes in consumer habits and fueled by misinformation around the safety of the product and a constant barrage of litigation advertising.”
Read MoreAnd advertisements alleging Johnson & Johnson’s guilt and encouraging consumers to join lawsuits (like the ones seen above) continue to make the rounds in TV spots and online. But, can anyone say with certainty that these products cause cancer? The evidence is lacking.
Does Talc-Based Powder Actually Cause Cancer?
For many, many years, Johnson & Johnson touted their talc-based powder products as so gentle it can be used on babies — and many people did use the products on their children. Women around the world, including many who got involved in the case against Johnson & Johnson, also used the talc-based products regularly throughout their lives to keep skin dry and prevent rashes.
The question is: do women who used the powders in the genital area actually have a higher risk of developing ovarian cancer?
There have been many studies conducted to try and answer this question — and they’ve yielded some mixed results. The American Cancer Society notes that there have been many case studies that have found using the powders leads to a slight increase in ovarian cancer risk, but the limitation of these studies is that they rely on a woman’s memory to detail how much of the products she was actually using — and these results could be biased.
Prospective cohort studies, which are not limited by the same bias, generally found no increased risk.
There have also been suggestions that people who mined talc, which contained asbestos, may be at a higher-risk for lung cancer. But studies into this claim were also complicated because talc in its natural form can contain varying amounts of asbestos, and because miners underground can be exposed to a whole host of other harmful substances.
Overall, the science linking the talc-based powder to cancer is inconclusive. For that reason, Johnson & Johnson says that existing inventory of the products can be sold, but due to the backlash and the tainted public opinion, it’s no longer makes sense to try to sell to the North American market.
Learn more about SurvivorNet's rigorous medical review process.
