Latest news with #JAMA
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Talc Is Suddenly in the Spotlight. Is it Bad for You?
Credit - Photo-Illustration by TIME (Source Images: Liudmila Chernetska—Getty Images, LanaSweet/Getty Images) Federal health officials are scrutinizing a mineral—added to some makeup, medications, and foods—that many people have never thought twice about: talc. In a recent viewpoint article called 'Priorities for a New FDA,' published in the medical journal JAMA, Dr. Martin Makary, commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Dr. Vinay Prasad, the FDA's Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, wrote that the FDA conducted an expert panel on talc in May. They also noted that some companies have removed talc from baby powder because it's a carcinogen. Johnson & Johnson, for example, stopped using talc in 2023 following more than 60,000 legal claims from ovarian cancer patients. The JAMA article added that talc remains common, since people still 'ingest it regularly' as an ingredient in various medications and foods. Despite the lawsuits, though, research hasn't confirmed whether talc causes cancer, especially when consumed through food. Meanwhile, companies continue to use talc in powders and cosmetics. Here's how people get exposed to talc, the potential health risks, and what to do about them. Talc and asbestos A naturally occurring mineral, talc consists of several elements like magnesium and silicon. When ground into fine particles, talc becomes talcum powder, which works to absorb moisture and soothe the skin. People have used cosmetics and powders with talc for more than a century. Before talc is mined by companies from deep within the earth, it mixes with another mineral, asbestos. This often results in talc's contamination with asbestos, which is proven to cause cancer. Talc, when laced with asbestos, is a carcinogen, especially when it's inhaled. Less clear is the cancer-causing potential of talc when it's not contaminated. In theory, talc on its own could drive cancer because its particles create inflammation when inhaled or migrating into the body after talc is applied to skin, according to Joellen Schildkraut, professor of epidemiology at Emory University. 'Inflammation can promote cancer,' Schildkraut says. 'Many studies have shown an association.' Some research shows that asbestos-free talc leads to tumors in animals, but animals reveal little about ovarian cancer in humans, Schildkraut says. Read More: The Race to Explain Why More Young Adults Are Getting Cancer Regardless, it's impossible for consumers to learn if products with talc are contaminated. Since the 1970s, companies have tested talc voluntarily, but the methods aren't sensitive enough to detect asbestos in their products—and the FDA doesn't require proof that they're asbestos-free. 'This means a lot of contaminated talc likely went through without anybody detecting the asbestos,' Schildkraut says. Using better tests, researchers have spot-checked whether cosmetics are asbestos-laced. From 1948 to 2017, two-thirds of these tests (conducted as part of litigation) came up positive for asbestos, typically in trace amounts. In 2020, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found asbestos contaminated 15% of makeup samples with talc. In 2023, the FDA detected no asbestos in 50 talc-containing cosmetics. (The agency didn't reply to TIME's request for comment.) However, conclusions can't be drawn about the entire market from these checks because they involved small sample sizes, says Kaley Beins, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group. Later this year, the FDA is expected to finalize a new rule aimed at improving companies' testing methods. Ovarian cancer risk Some data show links between cancer of the ovaries and a specific type of talc exposure: the use of baby powder in intimate areas for personal hygiene. But the findings have been mixed. In a June letter to Makary, several talc researchers—some with ties to companies that make products with talc—criticized the recent FDA roundtable on talc's health impacts. The roundtable discussions, the authors wrote, were skewed because they 'included several paid plaintiff-side experts in talc-related litigation' without any defense-side experts. The letter says that studies involving several different groups of women have found only very weak associations with ovarian cancer. Schildkraut—an expert participant in the May roundtable without any ties to the lawsuits—notes that some of these studies involved relatively few women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. It's possible there simply wasn't enough data to yield stronger evidence. However, in 2020, scientists pooled together data from groups studied previously and still found no significant link. Read More: Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is An important factor is that 'people may not be good at reporting their personal talc use,' says Katie O'Brien, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Studies and lead author of the 2020 research. In another study last year, she tried to correct for reporting errors while reanalyzing data from over 50,000 women and found that frequent users of talcum powder did have higher risk of ovarian cancer. 'This type of research doesn't determine causation,' says Schildkraut, who emphasized the same point during the public roundtable. 'But we do see a consistent relationship.' The self-report issue noted by O'Brien could extend to powder use for babies. 'People may not know whether baby powder was used on them,' O'Brien explains. Meanwhile, some laboratory research shows that human ovarian cancer cells, when exposed to talc, have more inflammation and cellular growth, mechanisms that can fuel cancer. Read More: Inflammation May Be the Culprit Behind Our Deadliest Diseases But Jennifer Permuth, an epidemiologist at the Moffitt Cancer Center who has served as an expert witness for J&J and signed the letter to Makary, questions how talc would migrate from where it's applied to cause cancer in the ovaries—without causing cancer in other organs along the way, such as the cervix. 'We would expect cancer to also develop in those other organs,' but studies find only weak links to these cancers, says Permuth. In a 2024 review, the World Health Organization found that, overall, evidence doesn't prove talc causes cancer, but it's 'probably carcinogenic.' The review focused on ovarian cancer 'because that's where the most evidence was' compared to other cancers, says Schildkraut, who served on the review committee. Meanwhile, the American Cancer Society states that, if there's an increased cancer risk, it's 'likely to be very small.' The E.U. has designated talc as a carcinogen, and it's expected to ban talc from cosmetics in 2027. Other potential health issues There's less research on other health issues related to talc. Some studies suggest that when miners repeatedly inhale talc, even if it's asbestos-free, their risk of lung cancer increases—but evidence on inhaling baby powder is more limited. In addition, a deadly cancer called mesothelioma is closely linked to asbestos exposure, though links to talc are less clear (partly because mesothelioma is extremely rare). Read More: What to Expect at a Mammogram Karen Selby, a patient advocate for the Mesothelioma Center at team of advocates, doctors, and attorneys supporting people with mesothelioma—works with patients who developed the disease decades after early-life exposure to cosmetics, she says. Every Christmas as a kid, Selby got a new box of cosmetic powder to play with. She'd cover herself and act like Casper the Friendly Ghost. She doesn't have mesothelioma, but recalling the haze of talc dust, she sometimes thinks, 'Holy cow, what was I doing to myself?' These makeup kits often have cheaper ingredients like asbestos-contaminated talc, despite that 'children are a susceptible group in environmental health,' says Beins, the Environmental Working Group scientist. 'I would try to keep talc away from them.' Safety precautions As researchers continue to study talc, Beins recommends using products with talc substitutes like cornstarch. (That's what J&J now uses instead of talc.) 'We can acknowledge the uncertainty and use safer alternatives,' Beins says. The Environmental Working Group has a database called Skin Deep that tracks which cosmetics contain ingredients like talc. Currently, the database lists about 150,000 products, and 8,000 have talc, Beins estimates. 'I wouldn't use talc personally,' Schildkraut says. 'It's not worth the risk because you don't need much exposure to asbestos to develop cancer.' Read More: 6 Things to Eat to Reduce Your Cancer Risk If possible, try passing on baby powders in general. Even if they lack talc, 'there may be other chemicals of concern,' such as ones added for fragrance or texture, O'Brien notes. If you've been exposed to talc for decades—whether through personal product use or occupations that often involve talc, like those in hair care—share this information with your doctors. They may recommend screening for ovarian cancer and other conditions, O'Brien says. What about food and medicine? Talc is commonly added to several foods like chewing gum and candy to keep them from sticking to wrappers and caking together. However, relatively few foods have talc. 'It's there and present sometimes, but it's not in a ton of food,' Beins says. To find which foods contain talc, you can search EWG's Food Scores, which tracks ingredients. Out of 80,000 products in the database, only 39 are currently listed to contain talc. In addition, the Environmental Working Group's Verified program certifies brands that meet its strictest health standards. To be certified, brands must disclose their ingredients, provide testing data, and avoid ingredients of concern. Products with talc can't be certified. Read More: Why Food Chemicals Are a Problem—And How to Reduce Your Exposure Talc is also added to some pill coatings because it helps pills travel smoothly through manufacturing equipment during production. But very little is known about cancer risk from talc in either food or pills. 'There's some thought that gastrointestinal issues might happen due to food exposure, because it's pro-inflammatory,' Beins says. However, this effect is mostly theoretical at this point. 'For the sake of public health, we shouldn't raise false alarms and make people scared of their food and medications,' says Permuth, who researches gastrointestinal cancer. 'Frequent users of talc-based personal care products or cosmetics are at the highest risk,' O'Brien says, adding that there's no medical reason for using these products. Whereas other established environmental risks like air pollution may be hard to avoid, O'Brien notes that for the most part, the 'use of talc products is something that individuals can control.' Contact us at letters@ Solve the daily Crossword
Sydney Morning Herald
9 hours ago
- Health
- Sydney Morning Herald
Could cannabis and psychedelics help treat eating disorders?
An international survey into non-prescribed drug use has made a surprising link between cannabis, psychedelics and treating eating disorders. The Australian-led survey of 7600 self-selected respondents across 83 countries has revealed that cannabis and some psychedelic drugs, including 'magic mushrooms' and LSD, were the most effective among self-medicated, non-prescription drugs for alleviating symptoms associated with illnesses including anorexia nervosa, bulimia and binge eating. Published in JAMA Network Open this week, the research has been led by PhD student Sarah-Catherine Rodan at the University of Sydney's Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics. Professor Iain McGregor, academic director of the Lambert Initiative, is senior author on the paper. About 1 million Australians live with an eating disorder, and almost one-third of adolescents in this country engage in disordered eating in any given year, according to National Eating Disorders Collaboration. They are notoriously difficult to treat and, according to the Butterfly Foundation, have the highest mortality rates of all psychiatric disorders. Rodan says the study found that beyond cannabis's reputation for stimulating appetite, it offered a variety of potential benefits to users suffering from illnesses such as anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge-eating disorder and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. Loading 'Cannabis has mood-elevating, anxiety-reducing gastroprotective and anti-nausea properties,' she says. 'Patients with avoidant/restrictive feeding intake disorder and anorexia nervosa report symptoms of anxiety and related abdominal pain and nausea, which can reduce appetite and exacerbate disordered eating. 'Cannabis also has anxiolytic properties and may reduce food-related anxiety and guilt.' The survey also investigated ways participants were ingesting drugs, which affected the positive or negative outcomes.
The Age
9 hours ago
- Health
- The Age
Could cannabis and psychedelics help treat eating disorders?
An international survey into non-prescribed drug use has made a surprising link between cannabis, psychedelics and treating eating disorders. The Australian-led survey of 7600 self-selected respondents across 83 countries has revealed that cannabis and some psychedelic drugs, including 'magic mushrooms' and LSD, were the most effective among self-medicated, non-prescription drugs for alleviating symptoms associated with illnesses including anorexia nervosa, bulimia and binge eating. Published in JAMA Network Open this week, the research has been led by PhD student Sarah-Catherine Rodan at the University of Sydney's Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics. Professor Iain McGregor, academic director of the Lambert Initiative, is senior author on the paper. About 1 million Australians live with an eating disorder, and almost one-third of adolescents in this country engage in disordered eating in any given year, according to National Eating Disorders Collaboration. They are notoriously difficult to treat and, according to the Butterfly Foundation, have the highest mortality rates of all psychiatric disorders. Rodan says the study found that beyond cannabis's reputation for stimulating appetite, it offered a variety of potential benefits to users suffering from illnesses such as anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge-eating disorder and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. Loading 'Cannabis has mood-elevating, anxiety-reducing gastroprotective and anti-nausea properties,' she says. 'Patients with avoidant/restrictive feeding intake disorder and anorexia nervosa report symptoms of anxiety and related abdominal pain and nausea, which can reduce appetite and exacerbate disordered eating. 'Cannabis also has anxiolytic properties and may reduce food-related anxiety and guilt.' The survey also investigated ways participants were ingesting drugs, which affected the positive or negative outcomes.
Medscape
a day ago
- Health
- Medscape
Supplemental Oxygen Therapy: Tailor to Your Patient's Needs
Nothing captivates patient (or physician) imagination quite like oxygen. Its power and necessity are considered self-evident. Also a given is the need for saturation to be 90% or above. It's a nice round number, and we're taught early on it's the tipping point on the sigmoidal hemoglobin curve. No one wants to be caught on the steep portion. So, the floor nurse sneaks a nasal cannula onto your patient at night, and the intern walks them wearing a pulse-ox before discharge. At $2 billion per year for oxygen, we have a problem. JAMA recently published a 'patient-centered' oxygen review. It's excellent reading. Table 1 summarizes studies of patient and caregiver feedback on oxygen use, and Box 1 provides an individual patient narrative. The described experience and related complaints are painfully familiar to anyone caring for a patient on oxygen. There isn't any 'news' here, and others have called for oxygen reform. The review highlights the evidence — or lack thereof — and is notable for its practical depiction of oxygen devices, durable medical equipment (DME) companies, and overall oxygen logistics. I regularly receive emails from the American Thoracic Society (ATS) oxygen interest group asking for feedback to help support passage of the Supplemental Oxygen Access Reform Act. I can't speak to the substance of the act, but — per its proponents — it's designed to achieve what the JAMA review advocates: oxygen reimbursement and supply tailored to individual patient needs. Great. There are things we healthcare providers can do now, though. De-implementation (or deprescribing) is critical to cost efficiency, but it's a distant second to not ordering oxygen at all. Outside of the mortality benefit for those with resting hypoxia, outcomes from oxygen prescriptions range from inconsistent to nonexistent. So, to start, if your patient does not have resting hypoxia, think twice (or perhaps three times) before walking them or doing an exercise test. This brings us to the walk-of-life prior to hospital discharge. The resulting ambulatory oxygen prescription is meant to be 'short-term,' but it is rarely so. More often, it's a gateway drug, driving long-term prescriptions and patient dependence. This is well recognized, and both the ATS and CHEST College list deprescription as part of the their 'Choosing Wisely' campaign. Therapeutic overconfidence and time constraints, along with psychological patient dependence, conspire to prevent it. Discharge is typically handled by general medicine clinicians, house staff, or advanced practice healthcare providers, none of whom are comfortable withholding therapy from someone who desaturates with ambulation. However, to quote an old adage from The House of God , 'if you don't take a temperature, you can't find a fever.' If you don't walk your patient before discharge… I'd take the same approach to nocturnal hypoxia. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement for desaturation at night is a modern-day medical mystery. The data isn't there and there aren't guidelines recommending it. Past reviews have argued against screening or prescribing. Anecdotally, I see this less now; but again, if you eliminate reimbursement. I'm confident it won't be seen at all. Lastly, there's oxygen education to improve health literacy. This is critical but it's a heavy lift. It takes time and resources, and both are in short supply. The JAMA review recommends an oxygen specialist to shepherd the anaerobe through the DME gauntlet. If only the authors could help me pay for one. Maybe I can negotiate with CMS myself. I'll stop ordering nocturnal and ambulatory oxygen supplementation. With the savings generated, CMS will pay for a respiratory therapist to do deprescription and DME navigation. Now that's choosing wisely.
New York Times
a day ago
- Health
- New York Times
What's the Hardest Part of Parenting in 2025? We Want to Hear From You.
Parenting has always been difficult. But recently, something seems to have snapped. Yes, there's the quotidian struggle of prepping meals and shuttling to summer activities. But now, according to Dr. Vivek Murthy, the former surgeon general of the United States, there are 'new stressors that previous generations didn't have to consider.' A recent study published in a JAMA medical journal found a steep drop in the mental health of mothers across the country from 2016 to 2023. As parents, we live and wrestle with some of those stressors ourselves. And as reporters, we've both covered the difficulties of parenting and motherhood in our work. That's why we want to hear your personal experiences about raising children right now. We will read every response to this questionnaire and reach out if we plan to include you in any upcoming stories. We won't publish any part of your response without hearing back from you first, and we won't share your contact information outside the Times newsroom or use it for any reason other than to get in touch with you.
