Study links talc to ovarian cancer, has implications for Johnson & Johnson

New research published this week confirms more than 50,000 cases of Johnson & Johnson Claims its talc baby powder causes ovarian cancer.

An analysis published Wednesday in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that using talc on the genitals is linked to ovarian cancer, and that the association was greater among people who used talc frequently or for long periods of time.

Researchers from the National Institutes of Health based their findings on data from a companion study that enrolled more than 50,000 U.S. women between 2003 and 2009. People who have a sister diagnosed with breast cancer may increase their risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer.

Lawsuits related to Johnson & Johnson’s Talc Baby Powder date back to 1999, when a woman claimed that a lifetime of use of the product caused her mesothelioma, a rare cancer often caused by exposure to asbestos, a type of known carcinogens). In 2009, another woman sued the company, alleging that its talc products caused her ovarian cancer. Since then, thousands of people have filed claims for cases of ovarian cancer or mesothelioma that they say were caused by asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder.

Johnson & Johnson has always maintained the safety of its talc products and denied they contain asbestos. The company also argued that research has not proven a convincing link between ovarian cancer and talc products.

As the legal battle continues, the new research could undermine that line of reasoning. Most of the lawsuits against J&J have been consolidated into a federal case in New Jersey, with a trial scheduled for December.

“This study is very timely. We feel it completely affirms and corroborates the position taken by the plaintiffs’ experts,” said Leigh O’Dell, a principal at law firm Beasley Allen. O’Dell is co-lead counsel on the Plaintiffs Steering Committee, a group of attorneys appointed to represent many of the pending cases against J&J.

However, Eric Haas, Johnson & Johnson’s vice president of global litigation, said the new analysis does not establish causation or suggest a specific carcinogen.

“This study does not change the overwhelming evidence that talc does not cause ovarian cancer,” he said.

Earlier this month, Johnson & Johnson proposed paying about $6.48 billion to resolve the lawsuit, but the deal would involve moving the case to bankruptcy court and would require a positive vote from 75% of claimants.

Johnson & Johnson has twice tried and failed to resolve its talc lawsuits in bankruptcy court. The company formed a subsidiary in 2021 that can assume liability for talc-related legal claims — a legal strategy known as the Texas two-step method. But so far, courts have dismissed the bankruptcy petition on the grounds that the subsidiary is not in financial distress.

O’Dell said her group “wants to see these women provide reasonable, fair solutions outside of bankruptcy.”

“We believe that any effort to file for bankruptcy again is another abuse of the bankruptcy system,” she said.

The new study asked women aged 10 to 13 years old and how often they used talc on their genitals in the year before taking part in the study. Researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) followed surveys from 2017 to 2019, asking women about their lifetime talc use.

Based on feedback, researchers estimate that up to 56% of women have used talc on their genitals. Compared with those who did not use talc, these women were more likely to be black, less educated, and live in the South.

The analysis could not prove that talc causes ovarian cancer, nor could it identify the brand or chemical responsible for the association. Dale Sandler, co-author of the study and chief of the epidemiology division at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said there may be no way to prove cause and effect in human studies.

“You can’t do a clinical trial and randomize people into ‘take powder’ and ‘no powder.’ So we need to look for other types of studies,” she said.

At the very least, the findings should prompt women to reconsider using talc products, said Katie O’Brien, an epidemiologist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and lead author of the analysis.

“We are not aware of any medically necessary reason for someone to use talc,” she said.

The current Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder formula uses cornstarch, not talc. The company pulled the talc-based version from the North American market in 2020, citing falling demand and “misinformation about the product’s safety,” and discontinued the product internationally last year.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, talc and asbestos are very close together in nature, so some raw talc collected through mining may be contaminated with asbestos.

A 2018 Reuters investigation revealed that Johnson & Johnson knew as early as the 1970s that some of its baby powder was contaminated with small amounts of asbestos. But Johnson & Johnson denies that its products ever contained asbestos.

O’Brien said asbestos may not be the only reason for the link between talc and cancer. Some talc products may also contain phthalates, chemicals that disrupt hormones in the body and have been linked to ovarian cancer. Plus, she adds, talc is inherently abrasive and may cause inflammation where it’s applied. Inflammation is independently associated with the development of cancer.

Controversy over research linking talc to ovarian cancer will almost certainly be a focus of upcoming litigation in the Johnson & Johnson case.

A federal court in New Jersey ruled in March that the company could dispute findings linking ovarian cancer to talc.

In support of its position, Johnson & Johnson pointed to research published in 2020 by O’Brien and Sandler, which found no statistically significant association between ovarian cancer and talc use.

But O’Brien said the earlier study may not have been set up to detect small changes in risk because it didn’t ask women about lifetime use and didn’t account for the possibility that people might forget past habits. Sandler said the new study took both variables into account.

“This new analysis evens the balance somewhat by taking into account all of these possible ways in which previous reports in the literature may have been incomplete,” she said.

J&J began selling talc baby powder in 1894.

Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research at Women’s Voices for the Earth, a nonprofit that aims to eliminate chemicals, said that while many women use it to keep their genitals dry, it’s not necessary to use powder to remove the area. of moisture.

“Moisture is a very healthy thing in this part of the body,” Scranton says. “This part of the body is covered with mucous membranes. It should be moist.”

According to O’Brien’s research, some women in the 2000s (usually in their 20s and 30s) also used talc on their genitals to feel cleaner and reduce odor. Health experts also advise against this method because the vagina is self-cleaning and the good bacteria inside naturally create a slight odor.

Scranton said companies like Johnson & Johnson “basically create and promote the myth that this part of your body — your genitals, your vagina — are inherently dirty and that they are inherently Smells and therefore is inherently shameful.

Johnson & Johnson said it disagreed with that characterization.

Some women continue to use baby powder on their genitals or use new products like vaginal cleansers or deodorants.

“It’s so ingrained and part of the way they take care of their bodies that they can’t imagine not doing it,” Scranton said. “They hear their mother’s voice in their head: ‘This is what it takes to be a respectable woman.'”