Petition Seeking a Cancer Warning on Cosmetic Talc Powder Products

* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.

Mon May 19, 2008 11:05am EDT

CHICAGO, May 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On May 13, 2008, the Cancer
Prevention Coalition, endorsed by leading national authorities, submitted this
Petition to the FDA.  This updates scientific information detailed in a
November 17, 1994, Citizen Petition which was denied by the FDA.  It also
documents prior knowledge of the FDA and industry on the cancer risks of
cosmetic talc. 

       The scientific basis of the 2008 Petition is detailed in 11 reports in
leading national and international scientific journals.  These document the
increased risks of ovarian cancer, ranging from 30% to 60%, from genital
dusting with talc powder.  In view of the strength of this evidence, a 1999
publication by a leading national expert urged that "formal public health
warnings" should be made against the genital use of talcum dusting powder.  
Of further relevance is well-documented scientific evidence that ligation of
the fallopian tubes or hysterectomy is protective against the dangers of talc
by preventing its access to the ovaries. 

       It should further be emphasized that cornstarch, an organic
carbohydrate, powder is a safe and effective alternative to talcum powder
products. 

       As the Petition states, FDA Commissioner Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach,
former Director of the National Cancer Institute, is or should be aware, that
the mortality of ovarian cancer for women over the age of 65, has escalated
dramatically since 1975, by 13% for white and 47% for black women.  There are
now about 15,300 deaths from ovarian cancer each year.  This makes it the
fourth commonest fatal cancer in women after colon, breast and lung.  Yet Dr.
von Eschenbach has failed to mandate a cancer warning label on talc powder,
let alone ban its continued use. 

       Information on the cancer risks of talc dusting powder is not new to
the FDA, nor to the industry. 

       As stated in the Petition, J. Mande, Acting Associate Commissioner for
Legislative Affairs of the Department of Health and Human Services, admitted
in August 1993 that "We are aware that there have been reports in the medical
literature between frequent direct female perineal talc dusting over a
protracted period of years, and an incremental increase in the statistical
odds of subsequent development of certain ovarian cancers . . . (However) at
the present time, the FDA is not considering to ban, restrict or require a
warning statement on the label of talc containing products." 

       More reckless is the admission, in an August 12, 1992New York
Timesarticle by Johnson & Johnson, the manufacturer and retailer of talc
dusting powder, that frequent genital dusting with talc increases risks of
ovarian cancer by three-fold.  This risk was belatedly admitted this year by
the industry's Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association.

       Finally, Senator Edward Kennedy, in a 1997 statement to the Senate,
requested the FDA to place a cancer warning on the label of talc products,
besides other products containing known carcinogens.  Nevertheless, over a
decade later this warning remains ignored. 

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chicago, Illinois
Past President, Rachel Carson Council, Inc.
epstein@uic.edu
www.preventcancer.com
312.996.2297


Endorsed by:  Quentin Young, M.D., Chairman, Health and Medicine Policy
Research Group, Chicago, Past President, American Public Health Association;
Peter Orris, M.D., Professor and Chief of Service, University of Illinois at
Chicago Medical Center; Rosalie Bertell, PhD, International Association for
Humanitarian Medicine; and Ronnie Cummins, National Director of the Organic
Consumers Association. 



SOURCE  Cancer Prevention Coalition

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. of Cancer Prevention Coalition, +1-312-996-2297,
epstein@uic.edu
Comments (0)
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.