Baby Powders and the Precautionary Principle

Our plain-English summary of Baby Powders and the Precautionary Principle, by D. Rosner, G. Markowitz (American Journal of Public Health, 2020).

The study

• Authors: D. Rosner, G. Markowitz
• Journal: American Journal of Public Health
• Published: 2020;110(9):1378-1379
• Type of article: Editorial
• Cited by: 4 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Summary of the article

In this editorial, the authors discussed Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) announcement on May 19, 2020, that it would stop selling talc-based Baby Powder in the United States. Sales would continue in Europe, and North Americans would be offered only a cornstarch-based product. The authors described lawsuits alleging that women and children exposed to talc as infants or while powdering after showers later developed mesotheliomas and ovarian cancers caused by asbestos-contaminated talc. In one case, in which one of the authors testified for the plaintiffs, a jury awarded 22 women $4.69 billion; the award was reduced to $2 billion on appeal. Drawing on historical evidence, the authors noted that asbestos was linked to lung cancer by the mid-1950s and to mesothelioma by the early 1960s, and that talc from many mines had been known since the early 20th century to contain asbestos. They also noted that a 1968 Public Health Service study raised questions about contamination of commercial talcum products, and that the industry forestalled talc testing methods proposed by the Food and Drug Administration in September 1973. They observed that J&J described its product as safe but did not say its talc was free of asbestos. The authors concluded that removing talc, prompted by the prospect of more litigation, was a grudging application of the precautionary principle. They argued that by not switching earlier to cornstarch, which had been available for decades, J&J had put thousands of women in danger by possibly exposing them to a known carcinogen. Both authors disclosed that they had testified for plaintiffs in asbestos and talc litigation.

PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

In plain English

This was an editorial (opinion piece), not a research study. It reported no new data. The authors discussed Johnson & Johnson's May 19, 2020 announcement that it would stop selling talc-based Baby Powder in the United States while continuing to sell it in Europe. They described lawsuits alleging that women and children who had been exposed to asbestos-contaminated talc, either as infants or while powdering after showers, developed mesotheliomas and ovarian cancers decades later. In one such case, a jury awarded 22 women $4.69 billion, reduced on appeal to $2 billion. Drawing on historical records and their own earlier work, the authors wrote that the industry was able to forestall FDA regulation of talc after the FDA proposed talc testing methods in 1973. They noted that Johnson & Johnson called its product safe but did not say its talc is free of asbestos. The authors concluded that removing talc was a grudging application of the precautionary principle. Both authors disclosed testifying for plaintiffs in asbestos and talc litigation, and one testified in the $4.69 billion case.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Editorial / perspective (opinion piece drawing on historical evidence; no original data)
• Who was studied: No study population. The editorial concerns Johnson & Johnson's talc-based Baby Powder and lawsuits brought by women and children who were exposed to it as infants or while powdering after showers.
• Exposure: Cosmetic talc (talc-based baby powder) alleged to be contaminated with asbestos, often in trace amounts
• Main results:
  • On May 19, 2020, Johnson & Johnson announced it would discontinue talc-based Baby Powder in the United States. It would continue selling talc-based powder in Europe.
  • The lawsuits alleged that women and children who had been exposed to talc, as infants or while powdering after showers, developed mesotheliomas and ovarian cancers decades later. The lawsuits alleged this was caused by asbestos-contaminated talc.
  • In one lawsuit, in which one of the authors testified for the plaintiffs, a jury awarded 22 women $4.69 billion. On appeal the award was reduced to $2 billion.
  • The authors stated that the FDA proposed talc testing methods in September 1973. As documented in their earlier AJPH article, the industry was able to forestall FDA regulation of talc.
  • The authors noted that Johnson & Johnson maintains its product is and has been safe but does not say that its talc is free of asbestos.
  • Disclosure: both authors have testified for plaintiffs in asbestos and talc litigation as state-of-the-art witnesses.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the prospect of more litigation led Johnson & Johnson to remove talc from its Baby Powder. They called this a grudging application of the public health principle of erring on the side of precaution. They argued the company could have adopted cornstarch decades earlier.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Talc and vermiculite.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Precautionary Principle, Talc, Mesothelioma, Ovarian Cancer, Plaintiff, Appeal, Lung Cancer, Talc Litigation.

Related studies

• Serous Ovarian Cancer Caused by Exposure to Asbestos and Fibrous Talc in Cosmetic Talc Powders-A Case Series — J.E. Steffen, T. Tran, et al. (2020)
• Potential Airborne Asbestos Exposure and Risk Associated with the Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder Products — A.M. Burns, C.A. Barlow, et al. (2019)
• Environmental exposures and cancer: using the precautionary principle — L. Cohen, A. Jefferies (2019)
• The precautionary principle and/or risk assessment in World Trade Organization decisions: a possible role for risk perception — B. Goldstein, R.S. Carruth (2004)
• Asbestos in organochlorine insecticide powder sprinkled between pages of antiquarian books in a library in Japan — Y. Sakakibara, K. Sakai, et al. (2024)
• Risk Assessment of Baby Powder Exposure through Inhalation — M.C. Moon, J.D. Park, et al. (2011)

Browse more research in American Journal of Public Health, or return to medical research.