Talk is suddenly in the spotlight. Is it bad for you?

Federal health officials investigate a mineral – added to some makeup, medicines and foods – that many people have never thought about twice: Talk.

In a recent point of view Article called ‘Priorities for a New FDA’, published in the medical magazine JamaDr. Martin Makary, Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Dr. Vinay Prasad, the most important medical and scientific officer of the FDA, wrote that the FDA led an expert panel on Talk in May. They also noted that some companies have removed Talc from baby powder because it is a carcinogenic substances. Johnson & Johnson for example, stopped using talk More than will follow in 2023 60,000 legal claims of ovarian cancer patients.

The Jama The article added that Talk remains common, because people still “take it regularly” as an ingredient in various medicines and foods.

Despite the lawsuits, however, research has not confirmed whether Talk causes cancer, especially when they are consumed by food. In the meantime, companies continue to use talk in powders and cosmetics.

This is how people are exposed to talk, the potential health risks and what they should do to them.

Talk and asbestos

A natural mineral, talk consists of different elements such as magnesium and silicon. When ground in fine particles, Talk powder, which works to absorb moisture and calm the skin. People have used cosmetics and powders with talc for More than a century.

Before Talc is mined by companies from deep in the earth, it mixes with another mineral, asbestos. This often Results in the pollution of Talk With asbestos, which has been proven to cause cancer.

Talk, when he peppered with asbestos, is a carcinogen, especially when it is inhaled. The carcinogenic potential of talk is less clear when it is not polluted. In theory, talk can itself control cancer because his particles create inflammation when they are inhaled or migrated to the body after the talc is applied to the skin, according to Joellen Schildkraut, professor of epidemiology at Emory University.

“Inflammation can promote cancer,” says Schildkraut. “Many studies have shown an association.” Some research to show That asbestos -free talc leads to tumors in animals, but animals reveal little about ovarian cancer in humans, says Schildkraut.

Read more: The race to explain why more young adults get cancer

Anyway, it is impossible for consumers to learn whether products are infected with talc. Since the 1970s, companies have voluntarily tested Talk, but the methods are not sensitive enough to detect asbestos in their products and the FDA requires no evidence that they are asbestos-free. “This means that a lot of polluted talc was probably going without anyone detecting the asbestos,” says Schildkraut.

With the help of better tests, researchers have checked a spot control whether cosmetics are asbestos-rattling. From 1948 to 2017, two -thirds of these tests (carried out as part of a lawsuit) came positive for asbestosUsually in track quantities. In 2020, the non -profit working group for environmental area found Asbestos polluted 15% of the make -up samples with talc.

In 2023 the FDA detected No asbestos In 50 talk -containing cosmetics. (The agency did not respond to Time for comment.) However, no conclusions can be drawn over the entire market from these checks because they had small samples sizes, says Kaley Beins, a senior scientist at the environmental group.

The FDA is expected to be one later this year new rule Focused on improving the testing methods of companies.

Ovarian cancer Risk

Some data show the left between cancer of the ovaries and a specific type of talks: the use of baby powder in intimate areas for personal hygiene. But the findings are mixed.

In one June For Makary, various talc researchers – some with ties with companies that make products with talk – have the recent criticized FDA round table On the health effects of Talk. The round table discussions, the authors wrote, were skewed because they “included different paid claimant-side experts in talk-related lawsuits” without experts in the defense.

The letter says that study Involving different groups of women has found very weak associations with ovarian cancer. Schildkraut – An expert participant in the May tour table without ties with the lawsuits – not that some of these studies had diagnosed relatively few women with ovarian cancer. It is possible that there was simply not enough data to provide stronger evidence.

In 2020, however, scientists bundled data from groups that were previously studied and Still found No significant link.

Read more: Scientists discover how toxic your things are

A important factor Is that “people may not be good at reporting their personal talc,” says Katie O’Brien, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Studies and main author of the 2020 Research. In another study last year she tried to correct for reporting errors while re -analyzing data from more than 50,000 women and discovered that frequent users of talcum powder did have higher risk van ovarian cancer.

“This type of research does not determine the causal link,” says Schildkraut, who emphasized the same point during the public round table. “But we’ll see a consistent relationship.”

The problem of O’Brien’s self -report could be expanded to use powder use for babies. “People may not know if baby powder has been used on them,” explains O’Brien.

In the meantime, laboratory research shows that human ovarian cancer cells, when exposed to talc, have more Inflammation and cellular growth, mechanisms that can feed cancer.

Read more: Inflammation can be the culprit behind our deadliest diseases

But Jennifer Permuth, an epidemiologist at the Moffitt Cancer Center who, as an expert witnessed J&J and signed the letter to Makary, wonders how Talc would migrate from where it is used to cause cancer in the ovaries – without causing cancer in other organs.

“We would expect that cancer will also develop in those other organs,” but studies only find weak ties with these cancers, says Permuth.

In an assessment of 2024, the World Health Organization discovered that in general evidence does not prove Talc causes cancer, but it is “probably carcinogenic”. The assessment was aimed at ovarian cancer “because that was the most evidence” compared to other cancers, says Schildkraut, who participated in the assessment committee. Meanwhile, the American Cancer Society states That, if there is an increased risk of cancer, it is “probably very small”.

The EU has referred to talc as carcinogenic, and that is expected To prohibit talc from cosmetics in 2027.

Other potential health problems

There is less research into other health problems with regard to Talc. Some studies to suggest That when miners repeatedly inhale the talk, even when it is asbestos-free, their risk of lung cancer increases evidence when inhaling baby powder is more limited.

Moreover, a deadly cancer called Mesothelioma is narrowly connected In exposure to asbestos, although links to talk are less clear (partly because mesothelioma is extremely rare).

Read more: What to expect in a mammogram

Karen Selby, a patient’s advocate for the Mesothelioma Center on Asbestos.com-a team of lawyers, doctors and lawyers in support of people with mesothelioma-working with patients who have developed the disease for tens of years after exposure to cosmetics, she says. Every Christmas as a child, Selby got a new box of cosmetic powder to play with. She would cover herself and behave like Casper the friendly spirit. She doesn’t have a mesothelioma, but remembers the haze of talcum, she sometimes thinks: “Holy cow, what did I do myself?”

These make-up kits often have cheaper ingredients such as asbestos-barrier talk, despite the fact that “children are a sensitive group in the health of the environment,” says Beins, the environmental group scientist. “I would try to keep Talk away from them.”

Safety measures

While researchers continue to study Talk, Beins recommends using products with talk substitutes such as Maïzena. (That is what J&J now uses instead of talc.) “We can recognize the uncertainty and use safer alternatives,” says Beins.

The environmental group has a database with the name Skin deep That follows which cosmetics contains ingredients such as talk. The database currently contains around 150,000 products and have 8,000 talks, estimates from Beins.

“I would not use Talk personally,” says Schildkraut. “It is not worth the risk because you do not need much exposure to asbestos to develop cancer.”

Read more: 6 things to eat to reduce your risk of cancer

If possible, try to pass on baby feasts in general. Even if they miss talc, “there may be other chemicals, as added for scent or texture, O’Brien notes.

If you have been exposed to Talk for decades – whether you have this information with your doctors through personal product use or professions that are often involved, such as in hair care. They can recommend screening on ovarian cancer and other disorders, says O’Brien.

What about food and medicines?

Talk is frequently added To various foods such as chewing gum and candy to prevent them from holding on to wrappers and jaws together. However, relatively few foods have talk. “It is there and sometimes there, but it is not in a lot of food,” says Beins. To find which food talc contains, you can search by EWG Food scoresThose ingredients follows. Of the 80,000 products in the database, only 39 are currently mentioned contain talk.

Moreover, the Environmental Working Group Verified Program certifies brands that meet the strictest health standards. To be certified, brands must make their ingredients public, provide test details and avoid ingredients of concern. Products with talks cannot be certified.

Read more: Why food chemicals are a problem – and how you can reduce your exposure

Talk is also added to some pilcoatings Because pills help to travel smoothly through production equipment during production. But very little is known About cancer risk of talc in food or pills. “There is a thought that gastrointestinal problems can happen as a result of exposure to food, because it is pro-inflammatory,” says Beins. However, this effect is usually theoretical at the moment.

“Because of public health, we should not increase false alarms and scare people with their food and medicines,” says Permuth, who is researching gastrointestinal cancer.