Talc, probably carcinogenic: WHO sounds the alert!

© HowToGym/Unsplash

The recent warning from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the WHO regarding the potential dangers of talc has caused great excitement in the scientific community. This natural substance (hydrated silicate mineral composed of magnesium, silicon and oxygen), widely used in baby powders and cosmetic products, is now at the heart of &#8217 ;a controversy that raises important public health questions.

The IARC, in a prudent approach, saw fit to classify talc in the category of “probably carcinogenic” substances. This decision, although based on evidence described as “ limited ” and being the subject of debate, highlights the risks to which a significant part of the population could be exposed.

Restricted but worrying evidence

The foundations of this classification revolve around three main axes: “limited” evidence establishing a link between talc and ovarian cancer in humans, evidence deemed “sufficient& nbsp;» regarding its association with cancer in rats, and “strong” evidence demonstrating carcinogenic mechanisms at the human cellular level.

Epidemiological studies have shown a constant increase in the rate of ovarian cancer among women who regularly use talc on their genitals. However, these results should be qualified by taking into account a potential confounding factor: the possible contamination of talc by asbestos, a proven carcinogen.

This complex entanglement of risk factors led the report published on July 5 in The Lancet Oncology to cautiously conclude: “  A causal role for talc could not be fully established ”.

An intense scientific debate

The nuanced analysis of Kevin McConway, statistician at the Open University in the United Kingdom , sheds light on this delicate question. The scientist warns against the pitfalls of a hasty interpretation of the IARC conclusions, emphasizing that “  the most obvious interpretation is actually misleading ”. Indeed, the IARC's mission is limited to evaluating the carcinogenic potential of a substance, without defining the precise conditions of its harmful action.

The observational nature of the studies carried out does not make it possible to establish a direct and indisputable causal link. McConway emphasizes this point by stating “ There is no compelling evidence that the use of talcum powder increases the risk of cancer ”.

Alongside these scientific debates, the cosmetics industry is faced with considerable legal and reputational challenges. The IARC announcement comes on the heels of a decision by Johnson & Johnson, giant of the American pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry. The latter recently agreed to pay the colossal sum of 700 million dollarsto put an end to allegations that it misled consumers about the safety of its talc products.

Although the company did not recognize its responsibility, it nevertheless took the radical decision to withdraw these products from the North American market from 2020. In other words: “ Don't worry, everything is fine, but we are still withdrawing our products from the market! ”. Johnson & Would Johnson play it Monsanto or Purdue Pharma style (laboratory responsible for the opioid crisis in the United States) ?

Contradictory research

A large-scale meta-analysis, covering a sample of 250,000 women in the United States United, failed to establish a statistically verifiable correlation between the use of talcum powder on the genital areas and the incidence of ovarian cancer. A notable divergence from the WHO alert.

These discrepancies illustrate the need for a cautious and scientific approach. multidimensional, capable of understanding the subtleties and nuances of a subject as complex as this one. The use of talc is part of a broader context of hygiene practices, lifestyles and varied environmental exposures, complicating isolation from its specific impact on health. In addition, the potential effects of talc may manifest over the long term, requiring costly and complex longitudinal studies to carry out.

Second, the variability of methodologies employed in different studies can also lead to divergent results. Participant selection criteria, data collection methods, and statistical approaches used can all influence the conclusions obtained. This methodological heterogeneity complicates the direct comparison of results and their synthesis.

The subject is therefore not closed, and would merit further scientific investigations to verify whether the WHO alert is really justified.

• The WHO IARC has classified talc as “probably carcinogenic” for humans, although this decision is not unanimous.
• Studies show a possible association between talc and ovarian cancer. However, the evidence is still limited and controversial.
• Johnson & Johnson withdrew its talc products from the North American market in 2020, despite denying liability.

< p class="text-base text-neutral-700 dark:text-neutral-300">📍 To not miss any news from Presse-citron, follow us on Google News and WhatsApp.

325.2k reviews

[ ]