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

New research published this week lends credence to the more than 50,000 lawsuits against her Johnson & Johnson Which claims that baby powder containing talc causes ovarian cancer.

The analysis, published Wednesday in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that applying talcum powder to the genitals was linked to ovarian cancer — and that the association was greater for people who used the powder frequently or for long periods of time.

The researchers, from the National Institutes of Health, based their findings on data from a sister study, which enrolled more than 50,000 women in the United States from 2003 to 2009. Participants joined when they were between 35 and 74 years old, and each had Among them is a sister who was diagnosed with breast cancer, which may put them at increased risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer.

Lawsuits over Johnson & Johnson's talc-based baby powder date back to 1999, when a woman claimed that its lifelong use led to her developing mesothelioma, a rare cancer usually caused by exposure to asbestos — a known carcinogen. In 2009, another woman sued the company, claiming that its talc-based products caused her ovarian cancer. Since then, several thousand more have filed claims for cases of ovarian cancer or mesothelioma that they say were caused by asbestos found in Johnson & Johnson baby powder.

Johnson & Johnson is committed to the safety of its talc products and denies that they contain asbestos. The company also said studies have not proven a convincing link between ovarian cancer and talc-based products.

New research could undermine this logic as legal battles continue. Most of the lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson have been consolidated into one federal case in New Jersey, with a trial scheduled for December.

“This study is very timely. We feel it fully confirms and confirms the position taken by the plaintiffs' experts,” said Lee O'Dell, principal at Beasley Allen Law Firm. O'Dell is co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, a group of attorneys appointed to act on behalf of several people with pending cases against Johnson & Johnson.

However, Eric Haas, vice president of worldwide litigation at Johnson & Johnson, said the new analysis does not establish causality or point to a specific agent causing the cancer.

He added: “This study does not change the overwhelming evidence that talcum powder does not cause ovarian cancer.”

Earlier this month, Johnson & Johnson proposed paying about $6.48 billion to resolve the lawsuits, but the deal would involve moving the cases to bankruptcy court and require 75% of claimants to vote in favor.

Johnson & Johnson has twice tried and failed to resolve talc claims in bankruptcy court. The company created a subsidiary in 2021 that can take on liability for legal claims related to talc — a legal maneuver known as “Texas two-step.” But so far, the courts have rejected bankruptcy applications on the grounds that the subsidiary is not in financial distress.

O'Dell said her team “would like to see these women offered a reasonable and fair solution outside of bankruptcy.”

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

The new study asked women how often they used talcum powder on their genitals from ages 10 to 13 and during the year before they were enrolled in the study. NIH researchers followed surveys from 2017 to 2019 that asked women about their lifetime use of talcum powder.

Based on the responses, the researchers estimated that up to 56% of women had used talcum powder on their genitals at some point. These women were more likely to be black, less educated and to live in the South than people who did not use talcum powder.

The analysis cannot prove that talc causes ovarian cancer, nor does it identify the brand or chemical that leads to the connection. Dale Sandler, one of the study's authors and chief of the Epidemiology Branch at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said there is probably no way to prove causality in human studies.

“You can't do a clinical trial and randomize people to 'powder' and 'no powder,'” she said. “So we will need to look at other types of research.”

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

“We are not aware of any medically necessary reasons why someone would need to use talc,” she said.

Current formulations of J&J baby powder use cornstarch, not talc. The company pulled talc-based versions from the North American market in 2020, citing declining demand and “misinformation about product safety,” and discontinued the product internationally last year.

Talc and asbestos are found in close proximity in nature, so some raw talc collected through mining may be contaminated with asbestos, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

A 2018 Reuters investigation indicated that Johnson & Johnson knew that some of its baby powder was contaminated with small amounts of asbestos as early as the 1970s. But Johnson & Johnson denies that there is asbestos in its products at all.

O'Brien said asbestos may not be the only reason for the link between talc and cancer. Some talc products may also contain phthalates, which are chemicals that disrupt hormones in the body and are linked to ovarian cancer. She added that talc itself can be abrasive, so it may cause inflammation in the areas it is applied to. Inflammation is independently associated with cancer development.

Discussions about research linking talc to ovarian cancer will almost certainly be the focus of upcoming Johnson & Johnson litigation.

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

To support its position, Johnson & Johnson pointed to research published by O'Brien and Sandler in 2020, which found no statistically significant relationship between ovarian cancer and talcum powder use.

But O'Brien said the older study may not have been set up to detect small changes in risk because it did not ask women about their lifetime use or take into account the possibility that people might misremember their past habits. Sandler said the new study takes these two variables into account.

“This kind of newer analysis tips the balance by accounting for all of these potential ways that reporting may have been incomplete in the previous literature,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson began selling talc-based baby powder in 1894.

Although many women have used them to keep their genitals dry, there is no need to use powder to get rid of them, said Alexandra Scranton, science and research director at Women's Voices for Earth, a non-profit organization that aims to eliminate chemicals. Humidity in that area. Which negatively affects women's health.

“Moisture in this part of the body is very healthy,” Scranton said. “This part of the body is covered with mucous membranes. It's supposed to be moist.”

According to O'Brien's research, some women in the 2000s — often in their 20s and 30s — used talcum powder on their genitals to feel clean and reduce odor. Health experts also do not recommend this use, since the vagina is self-cleaning and the good bacteria inside naturally produce a slight odor.

Companies like Johnson & Johnson “were basically creating and promoting this myth that this part of your body — your genitals, your vagina — is inherently dirty, that it's inherently odorous, and therefore it's inherently shameful,” Scranton said.

Johnson & Johnson said it disagreed with this characterization.

Some women continue to use baby powder on their genitals or have adopted new products such as vaginal douches or scented body 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 have their mother's voice in their heads: This is what you do to be a respectable woman.”