Letters: August 2018
Your letters on talc risk, gummy bears and antibody binding
The toxicity of talc has been a contentious subject for a number of years. The risks encountered by miners and those exposed to surgical dusting powders are well documented. The carcinogenicity of talc is an unresolved issue and the heavy compensation claims levied by the US courts on Johnson & Johnson are bound to cause widespread public concern.
Talcum powder is used by millions of women worldwide for hygiene purposes and up until the mid-1970s was generally recognised as safe. The potential carcinogenic risk of talc was first suspected largely on account of its chemical similarity to a serpentine form of asbestos, which has been linked to ovarian cancer in occupational settings and is a recognised cause of mesotheliomas through inhalation1.
Talc is a hydrated magnesium silicate mined in many parts of the world; natural deposits being commonly associated with asbestos and other minerals. The literature shows that before 1976, talcum powder was often contaminated with asbestos, but following identification of asbestos as a human carcinogen, guidelines were introduced that ‘only talc with no detectable levels of asbestos should be used in cosmetic products’.