4

There has been an article circulating on social media which says that a 1982 study implicates baby powder usage in ovarian cancer.

As early as 1982, studies have shown a link between baby powder and ovarian cancer in women. Findings have shown that women using talc­based powders are 300 times more likely to be diagnosed with cancer.

Is there any truth to this claim?

  • 1
    Earlier in the article it seems to say "33%" not "300 times" (not that I'm complaining about this question). – ChrisW May 5 '15 at 7:27
6

In 2008, there was a critical review of the evidence that using talcum powder in the perineal region might cause ovarian cancer.

Here is the paper:

The full-text of a draft submission for the paper is available here.

It found that,

  • several studies had found an association. (Keep reading, there is a twist!)
  • the relative risk was about 1.3 - which means 30% more likely, not 300 times more likely.
  • although talc has a similar classification to asbestos, it is not carcinogenic like asbestos.
  • the studies had a number of holes (e.g. inconsistent dose-response effects), raising concerns about their validity as evidence of causation.
  • there are inconsistencies between these findings and other studies of the safety of talc.

They conclude that these findings are NOT enough to conclude that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer:

Talc is not genotoxic. Mechanistic, pathology and animal model studies have not found evidence for a carcinogenic effect. In summary, these data collectively do not indicate that cosmetic talc causes ovarian cancer.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .