In a state trial in Missouri, a cosmetics expert testified that Johnson and Johnson’s baby powder should have had warning labels since 1982 that described talc powder cancer risk.

The cosmetics expert, David C. Steinberg, runs the consulting firm Steinberg & Associates, which focuses on compliance of cosmetics and topical over-the-counter drugs. He also founded the Cosmetic Preservatives Council.

Steinberg told jurors that the talc powder cancer risk had been known as far back as 1982, when a research study demonstrated that there was evidence of a link between talcum powder use and the development of ovarian cancer.

He said this hallmark study as well as numerous other studies provided sufficient evidence to raise the need for a warning about using talc powder in the genital area.

The expert stated that product manufacturers mostly stay abreast on medical research related to the ingredients used in their products to inform themselves of any potential safety issues and related problems that may arise.

Steinberg said that the initial published research suggesting a talc powder cancer risk dated back to 1971 when British researchers found that talc particles were embedded in the tissue of nearly all the ovarian tumors studied.

Additionally, the expert stated that documents from Johnson & Johnson as far back as 1994 demonstrated that the company didn’t want to pay for any research studies to explore the safety of talc.

Instead, Johnson & Johnson suggested that the government fund such studies.

Steinberg disagreed with Johnson and Johnson’s stance, saying it was an improper way to deal with the situation at hand.

“If you want to be self-regulated, step up to the plate and pay for the studies,” Steinberg stated. “If you don’t want to be self-regulated, then have the taxpayers pay for it. I don’t think you can have it both ways.”

The plaintiff in the Missouri lawsuit, Deborah G., alleges that the supplier of Johnson & Johnson’s talc, Imerys Talc America Inc. and Johnson & Johnson itself are responsible for her development of ovarian cancer.

She alleges both companies were aware of the risk of cancer, yet refused to provide any warnings.

The companies’ refusal to warn consumers about the talc powder cancer risk lead to Deborah’s Stage IV ovarian cancer and related treatment complications, reducing her life expectancy, according to the arguments in the lawsuit presented by her attorney.

“She has literally had her spleen removed, part of her stomach removed, part of her colon removed, all of her ovaries, uterus. She has literally had basically the lower half of her body removed,” the attorney stated. “She said if there would have been a warning on the bottle to not use this on the genital area, she would not have done it and we might not be here.”

An attorney for Johnson and Johnson continued to argue that there has been no solid link established pointing toward an increased talc powder cancer risk.

The attorney also stated that the FDA and CDC have already looked for a link between talcum powder and cancer but have found no evidence in support of such a link.

Imerys Talc argued that there is no talc powder cancer risk link that has been established, and the attorney for the company argued that Imerys only supplies raw materials for the baby powder and does not advertise or market the product.

In his testimony, Steinberg told the court that Imerys should have stopped selling its talc powder to Johnson & Johnson or should have urged J&J to warn consumers.

The Baby Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuit is Case No. 1422-CC09012-01, in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Missouri.