Case study: the mismanagement of Talc under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act
This blog post was written by Kanisha Acharya-Patel, WHEN’s Law Reform Specialist, and Zeina Seaifan, WHEN’s Policy Engagement Researcher, and the views expressed are not intended as legal advice. WHEN advocates for all women, trans, cis, and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB) individuals. For the purposes of this blog post, the term ‘women’ is used to describe those with ovarian reproductive systems and/or those who identify as women, recognizing that both sex and gender affect one’s vulnerability to environmental harm.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is the primary piece of federal legislation for protecting environmental and human health, including through the prevention and management of risks posed by toxic substance exposures. CEPA was recently amended for the first time since 1999, through Bill S-5, which was passed in June 2023 (see more about WHEN’s involvement in the legislative process here). This blog post explores how the regulation of talc under CEPA has failed to protect the health of women and other vulnerable populations by failing to consider how one’s identity factors, such as sex, gender, and socioeconomic status can affect one’s exposure to talc and susceptibility to adverse health effects from exposure.
What is talc?
Talc is a naturally occurring mineral and may be used in a variety of products in Canada including paper, plastics, paint, ceramics, putties, drugs, natural health products and cosmetics. Talc is an ingredient in approximately 6,500 cosmetic products in Canada (as of 2017) [1].
Is talc toxic?
Yes. In 2021, talc was added to the list of toxic substances under CEPA because the federal government concluded that talc constitutes a risk to human health. Under s. 64 of CEPA, a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that (a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; (b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or (c) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.
What are the government of Canada’s conclusions for the critical health effects associated with talc?
The risk assessment of talc as a toxic substance describes its critical health effects as:
(1) Non-cancer lung effects (ex. inflammation, impaired lung function, fibrosis) following inhalation of fine particles of talc when using loose powder products like baby powder, body powder, and loose face powder; and
(2) Ovarian cancer due to exposure of the female perineal (genital) area to products containing talc such as body powder, diaper and rash creams, baby powder, genital antiperspirants and deodorants, body wipes, bath bombs and bubble bath.
The government of Canada’s proposed human health objective (i.e. quantitative/qualitative statements of what should be achieved to address human health concerns) is to decrease inhalation and perineal exposures from certain talc-containing self-care products to a level which is protective of human health.
Why does Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) matter in the context of toxic substance management?
The Government of Canada’s approach to regulating talc as a toxic substance demonstrates how the current risk assessment and risk management processes do not adequately consider vulnerable populations (specifically women) and highlights the need to integrate an intersectional analysis (i.e. GBA+) into these processes. Currently, decisions surrounding the permissibility of substances to enter the environment are based on standard default estimates of exposure that are representative of the “general population”, rather than being specific to the threats facing populations that are more vulnerable than the general population [2]. Canada defines a vulnerable population as a group of individuals within the Canadian population who, due to greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at an increased risk of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to substances. One’s identity factors, such as sex, gender, race and socioeconomic status either alone or in tandem (i.e. intersectionality) can impact their susceptibility or exposure and therefore increase their vulnerability. By failing to consider the impact of intersecting identity factors when assessing and managing toxic substances (and therefore failing to apply GBA+), the government risks missing or misreading the experiences of a significant portion of the Canadian population and subsequently developing policies and initiatives that can inadvertently increase inequities [3]. By assuming that everyone is exposed to the same amount of a toxic substance and experiences adverse health effects from the same dose of talc exposure, the risk assessment and management processes do not account for how physiological and socio-environmental differences can impact exposure and susceptibility. This perpetuates health inequities against populations that are more vulnerable than the “general population”.
Which identity factors can increase the risk of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to talc?
Examining an individual’s risk of talc exposure through the lens of GBA+ reveals that exposure and susceptibility to adverse health effects from talc are dependent on various intersecting identity factors including sex, gender, age, and socioeconomic status. If these factors were considered in the risk assessment and risk management approaches for talc, many exposures and health harms from talc could have been prevented.
Sex
Health Canada’s risk assessment notes there is a “consistent and statistically significant positive association between perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer” and concluded that this is a “potential concern for human health” [4]. This means that women/people with ovaries are inherently more susceptible to ovarian cancer from perineal exposure to talc. In addition to perineal exposure, talc particles may translocate to the ovaries following inhalation of fine talc particles [5]. This is a physiological, sex-based difference, as people with ovaries are more vulnerable to harm from talc exposure than the general population. Despite recognizing the link between perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer, Health Canada’s risk assessment was restricted to “available information” and did not conduct further research or studies regarding the toxicokinetics of talc particles following perineal exposure. Toxicokinetics refers to how the body processes a chemical, including absorption (how the chemical gets absorbed into the body), distribution (where the chemical goes inside the body), metabolism (how the chemical breaks down in the body), and excretion (how the chemical leaves the body). One’s sex influences toxicokinetics [6], and given the link between perineal exposure and ovarian cancer, limiting the risk assessment to “available information” reduces its comprehensiveness.
Gender
The distinction between gender and sex speaks to the distinction between exposure and susceptibility [7]. As mentioned above, sex-based differences (such as presence of ovaries) makes one more susceptible to experiencing adverse health effects (i.e. ovarian cancer). Gender, however, affects the presence of exposure: personal care products are disproportionately marketed towards and used by women, many of which contain toxic substances including talc. These products include face makeup, bath bombs, genital antiperspirants and hair removal products, and range in talc concentration from 1% to 100% [8]. A young woman in her teens may feel social pressure from conventional beauty norms to remove hair in her genital area. She could easily find Veet hair removal cream (contains talc) at her local drugstore or online and would not be aware of the dangers of its use because the product is not required to have a cautionary statement indicating the association between perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer. She may also feel pressured to purchase face makeup, which increases risk of talc inhalation and related health effects (such as reduced lung function). Further, gender norms regarding which parent is responsible for child-care can exacerbate a woman’s exposure to talc via inhalation if she applies talc-containing baby powders when diapering her children.
Age
Baby powder products can contain up to 100% talc and are used in the perineal region of infants during diapering, and talc is permitted as a medicinal ingredient in diaper rash products at concentrations from 45% to 100% [9]. This means that infants and children are at greater risk of exposure to talc, both through inhalation and perineal exposure, and experiencing related adverse health effects. For infants assigned female at birth, this also inherently increases their risk of ovarian cancer, because talc use during diapering can result in talc particles in the ovaries [10]. Infants and children are further embedded in positions of vulnerability by the fact that they do not have their own agency to decide what products they are exposed to. Health Canada acknowledged that inhalation of talc can negatively affect lung health, even after a single exposure event, as reported in a 10-year-old child who was exposed one time at 2 years of age and a 7-year-old child who developed asthma and reduced lung function [11]. Vulnerability to adverse health effects from inhalation or perineal exposure to talc can be compounded if exposure occurs during a critical window of vulnerability, such as infancy, puberty, pregnancy, lactation, and menopause [12]. This demonstrates the importance of considering the intersection of identity factors: a pubescent girl (or person with ovaries) using a hair removal cream on her perineal area (due to gender norms) is even more vulnerable to harm due to her age, sex and gender.
Socioeconomic status
Low socioeconomic status can severely impede one’s ability to purchase and use high-quality talc-free products. Cheaper products may fail to use cosmetic-grade talc and instead, their products may carry additional impurities such as asbestos contamination. Canada’s risk assessment of talc only focused on inhalation and perineal exposure to self-care products containing cosmetic or pharmaceutical-grade talc (i.e. pure talc) [13], which fails to consider potential additional impurities such as asbestos (a known carcinogen) which is found naturally near talc. As many talc-containing cosmetic products have tested positive for asbestos including compact powders, eye shadows, contour palettes, and even children’s makeup [14], underestimating the possible contamination of talc undermines the strength and effectiveness of the risk assessment process.
How does Canada’s approach to talc risk management neglect these considerations?
The risk management actions for talc are measures to help reduce exposures to talc from certain cosmetics, natural health products and non-prescription drugs which may be inhaled or which may result in perineal exposure [15]. Measures to achieve these objectives include reading product labels and follow all safety warnings and directions, avoid inhaling loose talc powder, avoid female genital exposure to talc, and choose a talc-free alternative, all of which emphasize individual responsibility and place the burden of reducing talc exposure on consumers. Additionally, many talc-containing products lack any form of hazard labelling or cautionary statements, making it more difficult to make informed purchases. This is especially true for people with ovaries, as the risk management approach requires powder-based products to include cautionary statements (i.e."Keep out of reach of children" and "Keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation which can cause breathing problems" [16,17]), but does not require cautionary statements regarding the risk of ovarian cancer. It is unclear why, despite concluding that perineal exposure to talc can cause ovarian cancer, Health Canada decided that hazard labelling regarding this serious health risk was not required.
Individualizing responsibility can further entrench people in positions of vulnerability as people widely vary in their capacity to engage in precautionary talc consumption due to a variety of identity factors, including education, access to information, language barriers and/or literacy constraints. Failure to develop adequate risk mitigation measures, including hazard labelling specific to ovarian cancer, has likely resulted in many preventable talc exposures. Further, the draft risk management approach for talc identified a third risk management action (“communications to the public to help avoid inhalation and perineal exposure to talc”) but this action was not included in the final risk management approach. Given this action’s emphasis on increasing public awareness, its exclusion from the final risk management approach is problematic and sends the message that it is the responsibility of the individual consumer to scour Health Canada’s publications to learn of the adverse health effects of talc.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Help us get talc out of our personal care products!
We continue to urge the federal government to ban talc (specifically in products that can be inhaled or used in the perineal area) or at the very least, require transparent communication of the health risks through hazard labelling. Support our advocacy by signing this petition!
Look out for talc
or magnesium silicate – on the ingredient list of your personal care products, especially products that can be inhaled or used in the perineal area such as body/facial powders, bath bombs, genital antiperspirants and hair removal creams. Avoid these products if you can!
Use talc alternatives
when possible, such as cornstarch or arrowroot powder; many companies have released products that use these safer alternatives.
Raise awareness
Share this post and tell your friends and families about the negative health effects of talc.
Knowledge is power!