The Deal with the Baby Powder

Recently, Reuters published an article claiming that the talc Johnson and Johnson used to produce its baby powder, among other things, was highly contaminated with asbestos. They further claimed that J&J knew since the late 1950's.  Considering that baby powder is, after all, used on babies and many parents are likely to become worried about whether or not this is an issue I feel it is a good idea to go over the evidence. The claim that J&J was hiding a carcinogen in their talc products is a pretty extraordinary one. And as Carl Sagan put it, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It seems even more extraordinary when there are multiple scientists backing up J&J's claims of safety. So does Reuters have the evidence to back it? Sadly, it seems they do.

The strongest piece of evidence presented are the reports from outside labs, as early as 1957, that show detectable amounts of asbestos minerals in the talc. The 1957 and 1958 reports mention detectable amounts of asbestos particles. Further reports, from 1972 through 2003, sing a similar tune. In fact, a report from 1975 described the result as, "rather high." These reports tell the story of what is in the product. What's more concerning is what J&J did, or in this case didn't, do with the information.

In 1976 the company assured the FDA, who was deciding whether to put an official limit on asbestos in cosmetic products, that there were no detectable amounts in the time period mentioned. They failed to include some of the test from the 1972 to 1975 period that showed evidence to the contrary; they heavily cherry picked their data. This is just one example of the many presented in the article of the company withholding information. But it appears they also went a step further where the FDA was concerned. As stated before, the FDA was considering regulation; specifically, they proposed a 0.1% limit for cosmetic products. They looked to industry for suggestions on method. The Colorado School of Mines Research Institute suggested a concentration and microscopy technique that would more than meet the FDA's requirements. J&J, instead of following suit, pushed for an X-Ray scanning technique that allowed 1% asbestos, 10 times the proposed amount. The scientist who suggested this technique later remarked that if the FDA changed the method, "we [sic] would have problems."

These, and related, pieces of evidence provide a strong case against J&J. As of now, is seems like concern over use of this product is warranted. To add to this are the 11,000+ lawsuits that are currently underway. Though they provide additional information and perspective, the standard of evidence in law is much different from that in science; as such I'll leave it to people more versed in law to discuss. Suffice it to say J&J is denying all claims using the same shoddy data described above. I, of course, would encourage everyone to look into the evidence for themselves. But as far as my children and I are concerned, I definitely won't be buying any J&J baby powder any time soon.