Quoted:
Ordered to pay $417mil for failing to warn against possible cancer in their baby powder? 

California Court sticks it to baby powder

Another warning label coming our way soon!

Why is there any debate?
The mineral talc in its natural form does contain asbestos and does cause cancer, however, asbestos-free talc has been used in baby powder and other cosmetics since the 1970s. But the studies on asbestos-free talc give contradictory results.
It has been linked to a cancer risk in some studies, but there are concerns that the research may be biased as they often rely on people remembering how much talc they used years ago. Other studies have argued there is no link at all and there is no link between talc in contraceptives such as diaphragms and condoms (which would be close to the ovaries) and cancer.
Also there does not seem to be a "dose-response" for talc, unlike with known carcinogens like tobacco where the more you smoke, the greater the risk of lung cancer.
What should women do?
The charity Ovacome says there is no definitive evidence and that the worst-case scenario is that using talc increases the risk of cancer by a third.
But it adds: "Ovarian cancer is a rare disease, and increasing a small risk by a third still gives a small risk. So even if talc does increase the risk slightly, very few women who use talc will ever get ovarian cancer."

Quoted:


I read a BBC article on it today and it just seems like there's no real scientific causation as to it being a hardcore carcinogen and the $400M award will probably be knocked down.  The article stated that ovarian cancer is pretty rare to begin with and being liberal with the estimates, one 'might' have a one third increase in risk using talc (asbestos) on the coochy, so we're not talking Cesium 123 type problems.

BBC article re: talc on the kitty...

Chris