Asbestos In Makeup, Blamed For Women's Mesothelioma

 Asbestos In Makeup, Blamed For Women's Mesothelioma

When you mention asbestos and sickness, most people think of old, unstable floor tiles or insulation in homes or workplaces, or employment in shipbuilding or construction - the types of heavy industries that employ men in hi-vis jackets and hard helmets. In the cosmetics business, we seldom consider nude eyeshadow palettes or peachy pink blushers to be health concerns.

Nonetheless, dozens of British women are suing major cosmetic corporations in the United States, saying that they acquired mesothelioma - a particularly terrible, treatable, but incurable cancer of the lining of the lung, heart, or stomach - after using beauty products. 

Talcum powder, which is commonly used in cosmetics, is blamed for the problem. It's used in bronzer, blusher, eye shadow, foundation, mascara, lipstick, and even dry shampoo since it's great at absorbing moisture and avoiding caking. Talc is a mineral extracted from subsurface clay deposits; nevertheless, it may include asbestos veins. 

Read: Mesothelioma In Women

A new investigation published in The Guardian tells the tales of British women who blame major cosmetic corporations for their malignant mesothelioma. 

Beyond the claims filed against Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products, the ladies blame their illnesses on cosmetic talc found in bronzer, blusher, eye shadow, and other regularly used beauty items. They have filed a lawsuit in the United States.

Big brands that used talc in makeup were named in Mesothelioma lawsuits. 

The firms named in the British women's cases include Estee Lauder firms, Avon, and Clinique. Hannah Fletcher was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma after being exposed to her mother's loose face powder, cosmetics, and talc as a youngster, as well as her own usage of foundation and eye shadow. 

She filed legal action in the United States and reached an undisclosed but significant cash settlement with the firms. 

Jade Jenkins, another lady diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma, was featured in The Guardian. She stated, "When I was informed I had one to two years to live, I was stunned and scared. I wear cosmetics every day, and finding out that what I put on my face, which I've been buying since I was 12, caused this was terrible."

Study Highlights Talc Industry's Efforts to Evade Mesothelioma Claims 

According to research looking into the impact of talc in mesothelioma, the cosmetic corporations accused in the cases have tried for years to distinguish between "cosmetic talc" and "industrial talc." 

The authors refer to this as a "marketing construct," stating: "The talc mining and manufacturing companies have long been aware that historical and current tests for asbestos in talc reveal that talc is not and never was asbestos-free."

Sylvia Jackson, 69, is another British lady who has been diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma and is suing cosmetic businesses. Jackson claims she brought the action because "a successful claim would allow me access to treatments which can cost tens of thousands (of pounds) and aren't available on the NHS--that's my main hope." 

These results have far-reaching ramifications for both the cosmetic business and consumer safety. The legal fights fought by major cosmetic businesses highlight the crucial need for more transparency and stringent safety regulations for substances used in personal care products. 

As the cases progress, they expose a worrying history of alleged carelessness and inadequate monitoring of the cosmetic industry's usage of talc. 

Given these risks, women should take caution while using cosmetics items that include talc. While completely eliminating cosmetics may be impractical, choosing products with transparent ingredient lists and stringent safety standards may help limit any concerns. To avoid future harm, the cosmetic industry and regulatory organizations must face these challenges and develop stronger testing standards.

For the women involved, their struggle for justice is about more than simply money; it's also about starting a larger debate about consumer safety and accountability. 

The outcomes of these lawsuits might establish key precedents for how similar situations are handled in the future, perhaps leading to safer products and improved protection for consumers throughout the world.