By Dr. Mercola
Nearly 13,000 chemicals are used in cosmetics,
of which only an estimated 10 percent have been evaluated for safety.
Many do not realize that cosmetics can be brought to market without
having to undergo an approval process.
Cosmetics are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) but they're not FDA-approved. This means that only AFTER a product
is deemed harmful, adulterated or misbranded will the FDA take
regulatory action.1 The only cosmetic ingredients requiring FDA premarket approval are color additives.
So who is responsible for ensuring cosmetics and personal care
products are safe? The answer is the companies that manufacture and
market the products. It's a classic example of the fox guarding the
henhouse, which puts us all at serious risks.
Not only do FDA regulations not require specific tests to demonstrate
safety, but companies are also not required to share whatever safety
information they might have with the FDA. This poses an obvious conflict
of interest, and as recent lawsuits show, this can have serious
consequences for public health.
Baby Talcum Powder Increases Woman's Risk of Ovarian Cancer
Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is a well-known and trusted "baby
friendly" brand, producing a range of baby products and feminine hygiene
items. Unfortunately, J&J has failed the public trust yet again.
And the lack of regulations relating to cosmetics is what helped them
bury the dangers of one of its flagship products.
In 2008, I warned women to cease using talcum powder.
I noted there were several studies showing that applying talcum powder
to the genital area might raise a woman's risk of ovarian cancer if the
powder particles were to travel up through her vagina and get lodged in
her ovaries.2
As noted by Robinson Calcagnie Inc., a legal firm representing talcum powder victims, more than 20 such studies exist.3
Some date back to 1971, when British researchers found talc particles
embedded in a majority of the ovarian tumors investigated.4
While the measure of risk varies from study to study, the results
suggest women may increase their risk for ovarian cancer anywhere from
30 to 90 percent by applying talcum powder to their genital area.5
A 2008 study concluded that using talc as little as once a week
raised a woman's risk of ovarian cancer by 36 percent. Daily users faced
a 41 percent increased risk.6
Johnson & Johnson Faces Legal Challenges Over Carcinogenic Talcum Powder
According to Robinson Calcagnie:
"The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research
on Cancer [IARC] has designated 'perineal [genital] use of talc-based
body powder is possibly carcinogenic to humans.'
However, manufacturers of talc-containing products, such as
[J&J] and its Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products, have
refused to acknowledge the link between talc and ovarian cancer and have
failed [to] adequately warn consumers of the risks.
Now, more than 1,000 women across the country have filed lawsuits
against [J&J] and its talc distributor Imerys, claiming the
companies knew of the association between talcum powder use and ovarian
cancer yet failed to adequately warn consumers."
Johnson & Johnson to Pay $72 Million in Damages to Ovarian Cancer Victim
In February, 2016, a jury found J&J's talcum powder had
contributed to 62-year old Jacqueline Fox's ovarian cancer, awarding Fox
$72 million in damages.7
Ten million dollars was awarded for compensatory damages. Another $62
million in punitive damages was awarded to her family members, as Fox
died last fall, succumbing to the disease after being diagnosed with
ovarian cancer three years ago.
Fox's deposition was delivered via a prerecorded statement, in which
she said she'd been using J&J's talcum powder and Shower to Shower
body powder for 35 years. She now believed these products were
responsible for killing her. Fox was the first to receive financial
compensation.
Waiting for their day in court are another 1,200 women who, like Fox,
claim J&J knew about the risks yet failed to warn them about the
dangers of its talcum products. One Missouri-based law firm was
contacted by 17,000 individuals after hearing about Fox's case, so the
number of plaintiffs is likely to increase exponentially with time.8
The second defendant in the case, Imerys Talc America, was not found
to be at fault. According to the jury foreman, Krista Smith, internal
J&J documents clearly showed the company was hiding their knowledge
about the products' risks.
"All they had to do was put a warning label on," Smith told Bloomberg.9 In a statement, J&J responded to the verdict saying:10
"We have no higher responsibility than the health and safety of
consumers and we are disappointed with the outcome of the trial. We
sympathize with the plaintiff's family but firmly believe the safety of
the cosmetic talc is supported by decades of scientific evidence."
J&J Hid Dangers of Talc for 40 Years
Two additional court cases have tied J&J's talcum powder to
ovarian cancer. On May 2, 2016, jurors awarded Gloria Ristesund $55
million in damages. Ristesund, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in
2011, had used J&J's talcum products for 40 years.
After her hysterectomy, doctors did indeed find talcum powder in her
ovarian tissue. According to the Huffington Post, internal documents and
memos sealed the deal for jurors in this case as well, proving the
company "tried to cover up and influence the boards that regulate
cosmetics."11
Talcum powder is a magnesium trisilicate mineral. In the 1970s,
concerns were raised when talc was found to contain cancer-causing
asbestos. In 1973, it was written into law that all talcum powders must
be asbestos-free.
However, the ovarian cancer connection is actually not related to the
asbestos but is an independent risk factor. As reported by the
Huffington Post:
"In 1993, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a
study on the toxicity of non-asbestiform talc and found clear evidence
of carcinogenic activity. Talc was found to be a carcinogen, with or
without the presence of asbestos-like fibers.
In response to the federal NTP study, the Cosmetic Toiletry and
Fragrance Association formed the Talc Interested Party Task Force
(TIPTF). Johnson & Johnson was a member of the trade lobby and was
the primary actor and contributors of TIPTF.
The stated purpose of TIPTF was to pool financial resources of
these companies in an effort to collectively defend talc use and to
prevent regulation of any type over this industry."
The Talc Cover-Up
Interestingly, Johnson & Johnson owned Splenda and before I wrote
my book Sweet Deception, their New York legal firm wrote me a twenty
page letter warning me not to publish the book or they would sue me for
tens of millions in damages. Of course I published the book and they
never sued me because everything I wrote was true.
But getting
back to talc,as many other dangerous industries have done, TIPTF hired
scientists to produce biased research that was then used to give
consumers a false sense of security.
This worked for a number of decades, but then, in 2006, the Canadian
government classified talc as a D2A substance under its Workplace
Hazardous Materials Information System. D2A substances are considered
"very toxic" and "cancer causing."
That same year, J&J's talc supplier, Imerys Talc, started adding
warnings to the talc sold to J&J, providing safety information not
only from the IARC but also the Canadian government.
J&J never passed these warnings on to consumers, and still don't, claiming the scientific evidence supports its safety.
J&J also continues to "educate" consumers about the safety of
talc on its website, making no mention of having been found guilty of
negligence by two separate juries, or the 1,200 pending cases charging
talcum powder contributed to ovarian cancer.
Some Talc May Still Be Contaminated With Asbestos
BASF and its lawyers are also facing fraud charges related to talc —
in this case asbestos-contaminated talc. A class action lawsuit filed
against them alleges the parties "conspired to hide and/or destroy
evidence of asbestos exposure to prevent lawsuits."
As it turns out, while asbestos-containing talc has been banned since
1973, a company called Engelhard sourced talc from a mine in Vermont
that contained asbestos. Engelhard was later acquired by BASF, which
inherited the company's liabilities. According to the law office Bergman
Draper Ladenburg:12
"Three Engelhard officials testified in depositions that there
was in fact asbestos in the talc and that company officials hid this
fact."
J&J Has a Long History of Malfeasance
You may be surprised to realize that J&J actually has a long
history of corporate malfeasance. AllBusiness.com named J&J as one
of the Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the 1990s13
for deliberately destroying documents related to a criminal
investigation of one its products. In the last three years alone the
company has spent more than $5 billion to settle lawsuits related to its
products.
2010 was a particularly bad year for J&J. First it was discovered the company hid drug manufacturing problems,
and instead of recalling its defective Motrin tablets, it sent
undercover agents disguised as regular shoppers to buy up remaining
stock.
That same year,the government of British Columbia,
Canada, filed suit against J&J, claiming they aggressively marketed
the Ortho Evra contraception patch without disclosing serious side
effects like blood clots, pulmonary embolism, strokes, heart attacks and
deep vein thrombosis. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) also accused
the company of paying tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks to
Omnicare Inc. to buy and recommend J&J drugs.14
Investigations also revealed J&J's No More Tears baby shampoo
contained two potentially cancer-causing chemicals: quaternium-15,
which releases formaldehyde (a skin, eye and respiratory irritant, and a
known carcinogen), and 1,4-dioxane, known to be a likely carcinogen.
After several years of pressure from consumer advocates, J&J finally
removed these dangerous ingredients from its baby shampoo in 2014.15
How Many Chemicals Does Your Beauty Routine Expose You to?
The average American woman uses 12 personal care products and/or cosmetics a day, containing 168 different chemicals,
according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG). While most men use
fewer products, they're still exposed to about 85 such chemicals daily,
while teens, who use an average of 17 personal care products a day, are
exposed to even more.16 Clearly, such chemical exposures are not insignificant, especially when they occur virtually daily for a lifetime.
When EWG tested teens to find out which chemicals in personal care
products were found in their bodies, 16 different hormone-altering
chemicals, including parabens and phthalates, were detected. There are
other chemicals risks as well.
In the report "Heavy Metal Hazard: The Health Risks of Hidden Heavy Metals in Face Makeup,"17
Environmental Defense tested 49 different makeup items, including
foundations, concealers, powders, blushes, mascaras, eye liners, eye
shadows, lipsticks and lip glosses. Their testing revealed serious heavy
metal contamination in virtually all of the products:
Click on the code area and press CTRL + C (for Windows) / CMD + C (for Macintosh) to copy the cod
How to Reduce Your Chemical Exposures
The EWG has a great database to help you find personal care products that are free of potentially dangerous chemicals.18
Products bearing the "USDA 100% Organic" seal are among your safest
bets if you want to avoid potentially toxic ingredients. Beware that
products boasting "all-natural" labels can still contain harmful
chemicals, so be sure to check the full list of ingredients.
Better yet, simplify your routine and make your own products. A slew of lotions, potions and hair treatments can be eliminated with a jar of coconut oil, for example, to which you can add a high-quality essential oil, if you like, for scent.
It's important to remember that your skin is your largest and most
permeable organ. Just about anything you put on your skin will end up in
your bloodstream and distributed throughout your body. Once these
chemicals find their way into your body, they tend to accumulate over
time because you typically lack the necessary enzymes to break them
down.
When it comes to talcum powder, my recommendation is to avoid it
altogether. Also remember that adult women are not the ones most
commonly exposed to talc. Most parents generously apply baby talcum
powder to their baby's bottom at each diaper change.
A safe substitute that can absorb moisture is cornstarch. In 1999,
following reports of talcum dangers, the American Cancer Society (ACS)
and the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition (NOCC) came out with the
recommendation to use cornstarch-based products in the genital area in
lieu of talcum powder.19
Spread the Word to
Friends And Family
By Sharing this Article.
Email
No comments:
Post a Comment