A woman has filed a talcum powder side effects lawsuit after she developed ovarian cancer.

Plaintiff Siobhan M. was born in March 1976 and began using talcum powder products in 1986. She continued to use the products in her perineal area through May 2016. In June 2016, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

Her complaint joins an MDL against Johnson & Johnson, Imerys Talc American, Inc., and Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) for talcum powder side effects.

Over the years, Siobhan says she used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products in her genital area to maintain freshness and control odor. The products’ advertising marketed the powders to women for this purpose, she claims.

Shower to Shower’s slogan was “A sprinkle a day keeps the odor away.” The powder’s advertisements noted that our bodies don’t just perspire under our arms, and that “Shower to Shower can be used all over your body.” Shower to Shower’s website clarified that using the powder in the genital area was desirable because it could help reduce irritation after a bikini wax.

The talcum powder side effects lawsuit says that even though labeling has changed over the years on both the Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower packages, the message has been that women can trust the products to be safely used on their genital areas.

Talcum Powder Side Effects Still Denied

As early as 1971, studies suggested a link between use of talc powders in the genital area and later development of ovarian cancer. In 1982, Dr. Daniel Cramer “found a 92 percent increased risk in ovarian cancer with women who reported genital talc use.”

Dr. Cramer was so alarmed, he met with Dr. Bruce Semple of Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Cramer told Dr. Semple to add a warning to Johnson & Johnson’s talc powder labels to allow women to make an informed decision on whether or not to use the products in their private areas. No warning was added.

Since Dr. Cramer’s 1982 study, at least 27 other studies have indicated a relationship between talc and ovarian cancer, according to Siobhan and other plaintiffs like her.

Some speculated that because talc was mined in areas also known to produce asbestos, the cancer-causing material was actually asbestos-tainted talc. In the early 1990s, the United States National Toxicology Program debunked that theory when it published a study that showed a link between non-asbestos talc and cancer.

In response to safety alarms sounded regarding talcum powder side effects, the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA), now called the Personal Care Products Council, formed the Talc Interested Party Task Force (TIPTF). Plaintiffs allege the TIPTF’s intention was to defend talc in the event litigation ensued, but the task force publicly defended talc in response to the published studies that indicated the link between genital talc use and ovarian cancer.

One of the primary contributors to TIPTF was Imerys Talc, then known as Luzenac.

According to the talcum powder side effects complaint, Imerys Talc “knew or should have known of the unreasonably dangerous and carcinogenic nature of the talc it was selling to the Johnson & Johnson defendants, especially when applied to a woman’s perineal regions, and it knew or should have know that Johnson & Johnson defendants were not warning consumers of this danger.”

The Talcum Powder Side Effects Lawsuit is Case No. 3:18-cv-00033-FLW-LHG and is part of the Johnson & Johnson Talc MDL, In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 16-2738 (FLW) (LHG), in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.