Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Health

hlthe2b

(107,370 posts)

4. No. Talc is the proxy for the presence of asbestos. Not cornstarch.

Reply to Mosby (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 8, 2020, 11:53 AM

Jan 2020

Different mines still produce talc contaminated with asbestos. FDA, for all its best intentions, does not monitor sufficiently closely and surely not in overseas produced products. Hell, FDA isn't sufficiently staffed nor supported enough (especially under Republican admins) to do much of anything within their responsibilities, including food and drug monitoring.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study Finds Talcum Powder Not Likely A Risk For Ovarian Cancer [View all] appalachiablue Jan 2020 OP

I'm going to have to pull that study, but if corn starch use was not differentiated from talc, then hlthe2b Jan 2020 #1

It's not the talc that's the issue Mosby Jan 2020 #3

No. Talc is the proxy for the presence of asbestos. Not cornstarch. hlthe2b Jan 2020 #4

I see what your saying I think Mosby Jan 2020 #5

It was an exposure that needed to be differentiated from talc. Since it was not, its presence hlthe2b Jan 2020 #6

i might be wrong, but haven't billions of women used talcum powder rampartc Jan 2020 #2