Preview Newsletter
Talc 20/6
-
Johnson & Johnson: No link between talc and ovarian cancer
Jun 19, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Tara Glasgow
...Roberta B. Ness wrote about her role as an expert witness on behalf of a woman who successfully sued Johnson & Johnson, alleging that its talcum baby power caused her ovarian cancer. -
Rubber Ducky Awards: IARC leaves science trail of fear and rising costs
Jun 17, 2016 | Terence Corcoran
By Financial Post
FP Comment’s annual Junk Science Week comes to another triumphant close with today’s Rubber Duck Awards to recognize the scientists, NGOs, activists, politicians, journalists, media outlets, cranks and quacks who each year advance the principles of junk science. -
Why you shouldn’t put baby powder down there
Jun 20, 2016 | All Woman
MOST women hate the idea of sweating, though it is a normal part of our bodily functions. To reduce sweat, they may put baby powder on the troubled areas, be it their armpits, under their breasts, or even on their privates.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
-
Johnson & Johnson: No link between talc and ovarian cancer
Jun 19, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Tara Glasgow
Editor's note: In her monthly column on aging (Commentary: A plaintiff's witness in the baby powder case speaks out, June 6, 2016), Roberta B. Ness wrote about her role as an expert witness on behalf of a woman who successfully sued Johnson & Johnson, alleging that its talcum baby power caused her ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson is appealing the ruling. The following is a response to Ness' column by Tara Glasgow, vice president of research and development, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
As parents caring for our children and adults taking care of ourselves and families, we are deluged by what seems like a daily avalanche of information - some true, some not, and some tainted by hidden agendas. No matter where you turn, hyperbole and misstatements often take center stage, and it's difficult to know who or what to believe. At Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., we are guided by the medical facts and science when it comes to our products. Cosmetic talc is safe, and 30 years of scientific studies and regulatory reviews have shown this to be true.
This counters the claims of so-called experts, paid to testify on behalf of plaintiffs, who say decisions by juries should trump the overwhelming scientific data.
We first offered Johnson's Baby Powder as a product choice more than 100 years ago. Today, we continue to manufacture and sell Johnson's Baby Powder with talc because the science supports its safety.
Ovarian cancer is a devastating disease, and we recognize that women and families affected by this disease are searching for answers and want to understand the science. When concerns about an association between talc use and ovarian cancer were raised, we started doing the things you expect from a company you trust, including testing to ensure the talc in our products meets the highest quality standards, meeting with regulators and governments around the world, looking closely at the studies and available information, and talking with independent consultants.
The facts are clear. The studies, science, research and clinical evidence have continued to support the safety of cosmetic talc. Most recently, two widely-accepted, very large studies which followed women over a long period of time - the Nurses' Health Study by the Harvard School of Public Health published in 2009 and the Women's Health Initiative Observational Cohort by the U.S. National Institutes of Health published in 2014 - found no association between talc use for feminine hygiene and ovarian cancer.
There have been some studies that reported an association between talc and ovarian cancer.
In my job as a scientist, terms and words matter when it comes to studies, and an "association" does not mean something causes a specific result. Additionally, many in the scientific community have concluded that the data from those studies are inconclusive because of how the studies were conducted. Various governmental and non-governmental agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Cancer Institute, as well as other expert panels have reviewed and analyzed the available data and concluded that there is insufficient evidence linking talc use to ovarian cancer.
Johnson's Baby Powder products contain only U.S. Pharmacopeia grade talc to ensure it meets the highest quality, purity and compliance standards. We also carefully select and process the talc used in all our global production to be asbestos-free, and have confirmed this with regular testing since the 1970s. The U.S. FDA has also independently tested and confirmed the purity of the talc used in our cosmetic products.
We trust our consumers to make their own decisions, which is why we will continue to provide consumers with the facts. As a scientist, and most importantly, as a parent, I can tell you the science is clear - cosmetic talc is, and has been, safe for use and that is the most important guiding principle for every product Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. offers to consumers and patients.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/health/article/Johnson-Johnson-No-link-between-talc-and-8312170.php
-
Rubber Ducky Awards: IARC leaves science trail of fear and rising costs
Jun 17, 2016 | Terence Corcoran
By Financial Post
FP Comment’s annual Junk Science Week comes to another triumphant close with today’s Rubber Duck Awards to recognize the scientists, NGOs, activists, politicians, journalists, media outlets, cranks and quacks who each year advance the principles of junk science. Junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted, when risk is exaggerated or discounted, when science is adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda. Again, we acknowledge the inspiration for the award, Slow Death by Rubber Duck, the alarmist 2010 book co-authored by Rick Smith, former executive director of Environmental Defence.
WHO agency awarded Rubber Duck for coffee, meat, talcum powder, glyphosate alarms
This month the WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer marked its 50thanniversary in Lyon, France. Reports from the event held last week indicate IARC’s executives and supporting scientists participated in three days of self-congratulation. Unfortunately, FP Comment was not on hand to present IARC with our Rubber Duck Award for Junk Science.
For all its claims to being the world’s leading source of cancer research, the UN-related agency’s reports on cancer threats have turned into misleading, alarmist and costly guides to hazards and risks that may not exist. Of all agencies in the world, none compares with IARC as a potential source of fear and apprehension in the world population.
Just this week IARC produced research that claimed too-hot coffee (70 to 80 degrees Celsius) is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” At the same time, however, the agency announced a reversal of its 1991 claim that coffee itself is “possibly carcinogenic” to humans. Now, 25 years later, IARC says “ooops,” it’s not.
Fortunately, few took the coffee warning seriously. But other recent IARC monographs and reports are the source of ongoing political and economic mayhem.
Last month Johnson & Johnson, the health care company, was ordered to pay $55 million to a woman who claims talcum powder she applied to her genital area caused her ovarian cancer. The jury decision was based in part on a 2010 IARC research report that claimed “perineal use of talc-based body powder is possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
The IARC evidence for the link is absurdly limited, and rejected by most scientists. But when Canadian consumers Google “talcum power and cancer” the first promoted link is to Diamond & Diamond, personal injury lawyers who say recent studies “have shown” a risk link between talcum and ovarian cancer. “Please call immediately.”
Johnson & Johnson faces total fines of $127 million so far in the United States, and in May lawyers launched a Canadian class action suit.
IARC science also plays a role in promoting cellphone cancer scares. In 2011 it classified cell radio waves as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Last month when the U.S. National Toxicology Program released its dead rat study it claimed its findings “appear to support” IARC’s conclusions (see our cellphone Duckie elsewhere on this page).
Last October IARC dropped another bomb: Red meat, known to the agency as “mammalian muscle meat,” was found to be “probably carcinogenic to humans based on limited evidence.” Processed meat (bacon, sausages, salami) was said to be “carcinogenic.” Even worse, it’s the same rating IARC gives to smoking cigarettes. “Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes,” said The Guardian.
Critics pounced on the dangerous loopiness of giving equal cancer ratings to bacon and cigarettes. Smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by 2,500 per cent. One oncologist said the risk of colorectal cancer from bacon increases by one percentage point. As The Guardian later wrote, IARC’s comparing of bacon to smoking “is confusing and dangerous.”
Maybe not as dangerous and costly as the potential impact of last year’s IARC report on glyphosate, the Monsanto-developed weed killer. Glyphosate was listed as “probably” carcinogenic to humans based on a scientific assessment that one Canadian scientist says contradicts the conclusions of other research.
Keith Solomon, a toxicologist and professor emeritus at Guelph University, also said IARC based part of its conclusions on an erroneous understanding of research he conducted in Colombia. IARC said Solomon’s research proved that glyphosate produced DNA damage that might lead to cancer. That conclusion, Solomon told The Western Producer, is “totally wrong.” He added: “There is no evidence that glyphosate is genotoxic.”
On the basis of IARC’s report, however, the European Union may be on the brink of banning one of the world’s great agricultural chemicals. For that alone, IARC deserves this year’s first Rubber Duckie.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/rubber-ducky-awards-iarc-leaves-science-trail-of-fear-and-rising-costs
-
Why you shouldn’t put baby powder down there
Jun 20, 2016 | All Woman
MOST women hate the idea of sweating, though it is a normal part of our bodily functions. To reduce sweat, they may put baby powder on the troubled areas, be it their armpits, under their breasts, or even on their privates.
But according to obstetrician-gynaecologist Dr Charles Rockhead, all powders can affect the pH level of the vagina, moving it from an acidic to an alkaline state, and making women prone to infections such as yeast and bacterial vaginosis.
“Good bacteria — lactobacillus — live in the vagina and keep it healthy by maintaining an acidic environment. However, anything you do to reduce the lactobacillus in the vagina can result in a vaginal infection — things like antibiotic usage, which reduces bacteria, and scented tampons which can have chemicals that sometimes affect the vagina or the flora in the vagina. Also, scented panty shields, washing the vagina with soap, and using certain condoms or spermicidal jellies are things that will cause an infection,” Dr Rockhead said.
He added: “There are added complications with talcum, a chemical used in some powders, which can lead to ovarian cancer. So women must be mindful of whatever powders they put down there. Apart from infections, anything with talc has the potential to cause ovarian cancer.”
Dr Rockhead’s claims are supported by lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson, the first in 2013, which saw Deane Berg, a woman in her 50s who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2006, winning the suit against the major talcum powder manufacturer.
She reported more than 30 years of talcum powder use, including the Johnson & Johnson product Shower-to-Shower body powder, as part of her personal hygiene routine. A South Dakota, US jury found that Johnson & Johnson failed to warn consumers of the link between the use of their talc powders for feminine hygiene and an increased risk of ovarian cancer.
Dr Rockhead pointed out that research shows that the link between ovarian cancer and talcum powder was originally discovered in 1971 in a study that revealed talc particles in the ovarian tissue of cancer patients.
He explained that this was the first instance in which medical professionals realised women were at risk when using the powder on their genitals, sanitary pads, diaphragms, and in condoms, as the particles of talc easily made their way into the vagina and were able to travel deeper into the reproductive organs.
He said one sample study demonstrated the ability of carbon particles to travel through the vagina and into the Fallopian tubes in as little as 30 minutes, leading researchers to believe the same was possible with talc particles.
“The vagina cleans itself, so anything else you do to it is likely to create problems,” he said.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazines/allwoman/Why-you-shouldn-t-put-baby-powder-down-there_63523
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Add recipients
Suggested