The baby powder ovarian cancer link has long been suggested and it may be overlooked by manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson.

Johnson & Johnson has been the subject of numerous lawsuits in recent years claiming the baby powder ovarian cancer link. Even so, J&J continues to maintain that there is no connection between their product and ovarian cancer.

Baby Powder Ovarian Cancer Link

According to Adetunji T. Toriola, a molecular cancer epidemiologist at Washington University School of Medicine, the baby powder ovarian cancer link is not very clear.

He says, “Some studies have found increased ovarian cancer with increased use of talcum powder in the genital areas, while others have not.”

Toriola cites studies that have not found the baby powder ovarian cancer link in humans, but have found a cancer risk in animals. He suggests more longitudinal studies and more data to determine whether or not there truly is a baby powder ovarian cancer link.

Many, including Drexel University law and health management professor Robert Field, think that Johnson & Johnson ignored warnings about the risk and link between baby powder and cancer.

J&J has already been under fire just this year. In May a judicial circuit court for St. Louis, Missouri, awarded $55 million in damages to South Dakota plaintiff, Gloria R. She used Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder for over 40 years and developed ovarian cancer in 2011.

Another award for $70 million was granted to the family of a second woman who died of ovarian cancer allegedly as a result from using baby powder.

From as early as the 1990s, it is alleged that J&J was aware of the baby powder ovarian cancer link. Instead of warning the public, they continued to market it as safe and even stepped up their marketing to the African-American and Hispanic communities.

Field says, “One thing that looks very bad for J&J is that the indications from the data … that the risks are particularly heightened among African American and Hispanic women … and J&J promoted that use among this population.”

He claims that the company’s actions were not merely negligent, but that they were intentional.

Some analysts see this differently. John Kimberly, a Wharton college management professor, thinks that Johnson & Johnson is not necessarily placing profit above ethics. “It has more to do with the company drawing a line in the sand, in the belief that ultimately their approach to assuring product safety will be validated,” he says.

History of Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson was founded in New Brunswick, New Jersey, in 1888 and their talc powder product was launched just six years later. Because of the close tie with the company’s founding, Johnson & Johnson and baby powder are almost synonymous.

In 1982, when bottles of Tylenol were found to have cyanide in them leading to seven deaths, J&J led a nationwide push to create tamper-proof bottles. They spent over $100 million in a Tylenol recall. J&J has a history of putting customers before revenue.

Essentially, trust is crucial to the Johnson & Johnson brand and they cannot afford to have their brand tarnished by a possible baby powder ovarian cancer link. Analysts suggest that, to some extent, the sense that the brand can be trusted for women, children and babies is core to the success of the overall brand.

But as early as 1960, research studies showed the possibility of a baby powder ovarian cancer link. A 1971 study found that talc particles can travel from where it is applied on the body to the ovaries. In the study, 10 out of 13 ovarian tumors of women who used baby powder had embedded talc particles present.