Talcum Powder and Cancer 
 
 What is talcum powder? 
 
 Talcum powder is made from talc, a mineral made up mainly of the elements magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. As a powder, it absorbs moisture well and helps cut down on friction, making it useful for keeping skin dry and helping to prevent rashes. It is widely used in cosmetic products such as baby powder and adult body and facial powders, as well as in a number of other consumer products. 
 
 In its natural form, some talc contains asbestos, a substance known to cause cancers in and around the lungs when inhaled (see our document Asbestos). All talcum products used in homes in the United States have been asbestos-free since the 1970s. 
 
 Most concerns about a possible link between talcum powder and cancer have been focused on: 
 
 Whether people who have long-term exposure to natural talc fibers at work, such as talc miners, are at higher risk of lung cancer from breathing them in. 
 
 Whether women who apply talcum powder regularly in the genital area have an increased risk of ovarian cancer. 
 
 Does talcum powder cause cancer? 
 
 When talking about whether or not talcum powder is linked to cancer, it is important to distinguish between talc that contains asbestos and talc that is asbestos-free. Talc that has asbestos is generally accepted as being able to cause cancer if it is inhaled. This type of talc is not used in modern consumer products. The evidence about asbestos-free talc, which is still widely used, is less clear. 
 
 Researchers use 2 main types of studies to try to figure out if a substance or exposure causes cancer. 
 
 Lab studies: In studies done in the lab, animals are exposed to a substance (often in very large doses) to see if it causes tumors or other health problems. Researchers might also expose normal cells in a lab dish to the substance to see if it causes the types of changes that are seen in cancer cells. It’s not always clear if the results from these types of studies will apply to humans, but lab studies are a good way to find out if a substance might possibly cause cancer. 
 
 Studies in people: Another type of study looks at cancer rates in different groups of people. Such a study might compare the cancer rate in a group exposed to a substance to the rate in a group not exposed to it, or compare it to what the expected cancer rate would be in the general population. But sometimes it can be hard to know what the results of these studies mean, because many other factors might affect the results. 
 
 In most cases neither type of study provides enough evidence on its own, so researchers usually look at both lab-based and human and studies when trying to figure out if something causes cancer. 
 
 Studies in the lab 
 
 Studies that exposed lab animals (rats, mice, and hamsters) to asbestos-free talc in various ways have had mixed results, with some showing tumor formation and others not finding any. 
 
 Studies in people 
 
 Ovarian cancer 
 
 It has been suggested that talcum powder might cause cancer in the ovaries if the powder particles (applied to the genital area or on sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or condoms) were to travel through the vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes to the ovary. 
 
 Many studies in women have looked at the possible link between talcum powder and cancer of the ovary. Findings have been mixed, with some studies reporting a slightly increased risk and some reporting no increase. Many case-control studies have found a small increase in risk. But these types of studies can be biased because they often rely on a person’s memory of talc use many years earlier. Two prospective cohort studies, which would not have the same type of potential bias, have not found an increased risk. 
 
 For any individual woman, if there is an increased risk, the overall increase is likely to very be small. Still, talc is widely used in many products, so it is important to determine if the increased risk is real. Research in this area continues. 
 
 Lung cancer 
 
 Some studies of talc miners and millers have suggested an increased risk of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, while others have found no increase in lung cancer risk. These studies have been complicated by the fact that talc in its natural form can contain varying amounts of asbestos and other minerals, unlike the purified talc in consumer products. When working underground, miners can also be exposed to other substances that might affect lung cancer risk, such as radon. 
 
 No increased risk of lung cancer has been reported with the use of cosmetic talcum powder. 
 
 Other cancers 
 
 Talc use has not been strongly linked to other cancers, although not all possible links with other cancers have been studied extensively. 
 
 One study suggested genital talcum powder use may slightly increase the risk of endometrial (uterine) cancer in women who are past menopause. But other studies have not found such a link. Further studies are needed to explore this topic. 
 
 Some limited research has also looked at a possible link between inhaled talc exposure at work and other cancers, such as stomach cancer. But there is no strong evidence of such links at this time. 
 
 What expert agencies say 
 
 Several national and international agencies study substances in the environment to determine if they can cause cancer. (A substance that causes cancer or helps cancer grow is called a carcinogen.) The American Cancer Society looks to these organizations to evaluate the risks based on evidence from laboratory, animal, and human research studies. 
 
 The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. 
 
 IARC classifies talc that contains asbestos as “carcinogenic to humans.” 
 
 Based on the lack of data from human studies and on limited data in lab animal studies, IARC classifies inhaled talc not containing asbestos as “not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.” 
 
 Based on limited evidence from human studies of a link to ovarian cancer, IARC classifies the perineal (genital) use of talc-based body powder as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” 
 
 The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) is formed from parts of several different government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The NTP has not fully reviewed talc (with or without asbestos) as a possible carcinogen. 
 
 (For more information on the classification systems used by these agencies, see our document Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.) 
 
 Can I reduce my exposure to talcum powder? 
 
 It is not clear if consumer products containing talcum powder increase cancer risk. Studies of personal use of talcum powder have had mixed results, although there is some suggestion of a possible increase in ovarian cancer risk. There is very little evidence at this time that any other forms of cancer are linked with consumer use of talcum powder. 
 
 Until more information is available, people concerned about using talcum powder may want to avoid or limit their use of consumer products that contain it. 
 
 Additional resources 
 
 More information from your American Cancer Society 
 
 The following related information may also be helpful to you. These materials may be viewed on our website or ordered from our toll-free number, at 1-800-227-2345. 
 
 Asbestos 
 
 Known and Probable Human Carcinogens 
 
 No matter who you are, we can help. Contact us anytime, day or night, for information and support. Call us at 1-800-227-2345 or visit www.cancer.org. 
 
 References 
 
 Coggiola M, Bosio D, Pira E, et al. An update of a mortality study of talc miners and millers in Italy. Am J Ind Med. 2003;44:63−69. 
 
 Cook LS, Kamb ML, Weiss NS. Perineal powder exposure and the risk of ovarian cancer. Am J Epidemiol.1997;145:459−465. 
 
 Crawford L, Reeves KW, Luisi N, Balasubramanian R, Sturgeon SR. Perineal powder use and risk of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23:1673−1680. 
 
 Gertig DM, Hunter DJ, Cramer DW, et al. Prospective study of talc use and ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:249−252. 
 
 Hartge P, Stewart PA. Occupation and ovarian cancer: A case-control study in the Washington DC metropolitan area, 1978-1981. J Occup Med. 1994;36:924−927. 
 
 Honda Y, Beall C, Delzell E, et al. Mortality among workers at a talc mining and milling facility. Ann Occup Hyg. 2002;46:575−585. 
 
 Houghton SC, Reeves KW, Hankinson SE, et al. Perineal powder use and risk of ovarian cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Sep 10;106(9). 
 
 International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Volume 93. Carbon Black, Titanium Dioxide, Talc. 2010. Accessed at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol93/index.php on September 29, 2014. 
 
 Karageorgi S, Gates MA, Hankinson SE, De Vivo I. Perineal use of talcum powder and endometrial cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:1269−1275. 
 
 Mills PK, Riordan DG, Cress RD, Young HA. Perineal talc exposure and epithelial ovarian cancer risk in the Central Valley of California. Int J Cancer. 2004;112:458−464. 
 
 Neill AS, Nagle CM, Spurdle AB, Webb PM. Use of talcum powder and endometrial cancer risk. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;2:513−519. 
 
 Rosenblatt KA, Weiss NS, Cushing-Haugen KL, Wicklund KG, Rossing MA. Genital powder exposure and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2011;22:737−742. 
 
 Terry KL, Karageorgi S, Shvetsov YB, et al. Genital powder use and risk of ovarian cancer: A pooled analysis of 8,525 cases and 9,859 controls. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2013;6:811–821. 
 
 Thomas TL, Stewart PA. Mortality from lung cancer and respiratory disease among pottery workers exposed to silica and talc. Am J Epidemiol. 1987;125:35−43. 
 
 US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. Talc (cosmetic & occupational exposure). 2014. Accessed at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/roc/roc13/othernoms/t/talc/summary/index.html on September 29, 2014. ||||| Close Get email notifications on Nassim Benchaabane daily! 
 
 Your notification has been saved. 
 
 There was a problem saving your notification. 
 
 Whenever Nassim Benchaabane posts new content, you'll get an email delivered to your inbox with a link. 
 
 Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items. ||||| A St. Louis jury on Thursday awarded a California woman more than $70 million in her lawsuit alleging that years of using Johnson & Johnson's baby powder caused her cancer, the latest case raising concerns about the health ramifications of extended talcum powder use. 
 
 The jury ruling ended the trial that began Sept. 26 in the case brought by Deborah Giannecchini of Modesto, California. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012. The suit accused Johnson & Johnson of "negligent conduct" in making and marketing its baby powder. 
 
 "We are pleased the jury did the right thing," said Jim Onder, an attorney for the plaintiff. "They once again reaffirmed the need for Johnson & Johnson to warn the public of the ovarian cancer risk associated with its product." 
 
 Carol Goodrich, a spokeswoman with Johnson & Johnson, could not immediately be reached for comment. In a statement provided to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, she said: "We deeply sympathize with the women and families impacted by ovarian cancer. We will appeal today's verdict because we are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder." 
 
 Earlier this year, two other lawsuits in St. Louis ended in jury verdicts worth a combined $127 million. But two others in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said there wasn't reliable evidence that talc leads to ovarian cancer, an often fatal but relatively rare form of cancer. Ovarian cancer accounts for about 22,000 of the 1.7 million new cases of cancer expected to be diagnosed in the U.S. this year. 
 
 About 2,000 women have filed similar suits, and lawyers are reviewing thousands of other potential cases, most generated by ads touting the two big verdicts out of St. Louis — a $72 million award in February to relatives of an Alabama woman who died of ovarian cancer, and a $55 million award in May to a South Dakota survivor of the disease. 
 
 Much research has found no link or a weak one between ovarian cancer and using baby powder for feminine hygiene, and most major health groups have declared talc harmless. Johnson & Johnson, whose baby powder dominates the market, maintains it's perfectly safe. 
 
 But Onder of the Onder Law Firm in suburban St. Louis, which represented plaintiffs in all three St. Louis cases, cited other research that began connecting talcum powder to ovarian cancer in the 1970s. He said case studies have indicated that women who regularly use talc on their genital area face up to a 40 percent higher risk of developing ovarian cancer. ||||| SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email 
 
 Johnson & Johnson lost a third straight trial over claims its talcum powder can cause ovarian cancer with a St. Louis jury awarding a California woman more than $70 million. 
 
 J&J is accused in about 1,700 lawsuits in state and federal court of ignoring studies linking its baby powder and Shower-to-Shower talc products to ovarian cancer and failing to warn customers about the risk. Thursday’s verdict follows damages verdicts of $72 million and $55 million against the company this year in the first two talc claims to go to trial in St. Louis. Both are being appealed. 
 
 Deborah Giannecchini, 62, used J&J’s baby powder for feminine hygiene for more than four decades until her diagnosis with ovarian cancer three years ago, according to her lawyers. She has an 80 percent chance of dying in the next two years, and has undergone surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, they said. 
 
 A J&J unit was ordered to pay $65 million in punitive damages and 90 percent of about $2.5 million for medical costs and pain and suffering. Co-defendant Imerys Talc America, the supplier of the talc, was hit with $2.5 million in punitive damages. Jurors returned the verdict after deliberating for about three hours. 
 
 The company should have provided a warning label on the product to let consumers decide whether to use talc, one juror Billie Ray, 76, of St. Louis, said after the trial. “It seemed like Johnson & Johnson didn’t pay attention,” she said. “It seemed like they didn’t care.” 
 
 Giannecchini appeared overwhelmed by the verdict. “I’ve waited for a long time for this,” she said. “I’ve wanted this so badly.” 
 
 J&J will appeal, said Carol Goodrich, company spokeswoman. “We are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder,” she said in a statement. 
 
 Imerys ‘Disappointed’ 
 
 Imerys is “disappointed’’ with the verdict, said Dan Rene, a company spokesman. Imerys had been cleared in the two prior St. Louis trials, as well as in two claims dismissed in New Jersey, Rene said in a statement. 
 
 “This verdict serves to undermine efforts by the scientific community to determine the true causes of ovarian cancer,’’ Rene said. “The theories relied upon by plaintiffs’ experts lacked scientific foundation.’’ 
 
 J&J is facing hundreds of claims in St. Louis state court, which has become a magnet for plaintiffs’ product defect claims, as well as about 300 suits in Los Angeles, another 200 in New Jersey and a growing number of federal cases combined before one judge in that state. A New Jersey state court judge last month threw out two talc cases set for trial, finding inadequate scientific support for the claims. 
 
 JNJ has denied any link to talc use and ovarian cancer. 
 
 “Science, research, clinical evidence and decades of studies by medical experts around the world continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,’’ Goodrich said before the verdict. The New Jersey dismissal decision “highlights the lack of scientific evidence behind plaintiffs’ allegations,” she said. 
 
 Risk Known 
 
 J&J was aware of “30 years of studies showing an increased risk of ovarian cancer from the use of talc,” Giannecchini’s lawyer, Allen Smith, told jurors in the St. Louis trial. “They knew, and they knew the public was unaware of the risk.” Instead of adding warning labels, J&J “developed a defense strategy to prevent government regulation of its products,” he said. 
 
 “I think the jury heard our message loud and clear,” Smith said after the verdict. “If this doesn’t send a message to J&J to add a warning, I don’t know what will.” 
 
 The case is Hogans v. Johnson & Johnson, 1422-CC09012-01, Circuit Court, St. Louis City, Missouri (St. Louis).
– For more than 40 years, Deborah Giannecchini used Johnson & Johnson baby powder and other talcum powder products—and on Thursday, a St. Louis jury awarded more than $70 million in damages on her claim, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. The 63-year-old Californian said those J&J products contributed to her developing ovarian cancer. The jury voted against J&J 10-2—one of the dissenters actually didn't think the award was enough—with an award of $575,000 in medical damages, $2 million in compensatory damages, $2.5 million in compensatory damages against Imerys Talc (the producer of the talcum powder), and $65 million in punitive damages against J&J. About half of the punitive damages will go to the Missouri Crime Victims' Compensation Program, per Jim Onder of Onder Law, which has handled all three cases with awarded damages so far. Memos from inside J&J show the company knew for decades about research tying the use of talc powder to ovarian cancer, Onder says—though CNBC says "much" of that research has been "weak." Giannecchini, however, had no clue of possible risks. "There isn't a way to describe how you feel ... when you're told you probably won't make it beyond the next year," she says of receiving her stage 4 cancer diagnosis in 2012. Per her lawyers, Giannecchini has about an 80% chance of dying within the next two years, Bloomberg reports. Not that Onder expects J&J to cede to the nearly 2,000 state and federal complaints against it; instead, he believes the company will take a "scorched-earth legal policy" and not settle "until they absolutely have to." In a statement, a J&J rep says the company will appeal because it's "guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder."