-
Critical Reviews in Toxicology Jun 2024Over the past several decades, there have been many epidemiology studies on talc and cancer published in the scientific literature, and several reviews and meta-analyses... (Review)
Review
Over the past several decades, there have been many epidemiology studies on talc and cancer published in the scientific literature, and several reviews and meta-analyses of talc and respiratory, female reproductive, and stomach cancers, specifically. To help provide a resource for the evaluation of talc as a potential human carcinogen, we applied a consistent set of examination methods and criteria for all epidemiology studies that examined the association between talc exposure (by various routes) and cancers (of various types). We identified 30 cohort, 35 case-control, and 12 pooled studies that evaluated occupational, medicinal, and personal-care product talc exposure and cancers of the respiratory system, the female reproductive tract, the gastrointestinal tract, the urinary system, the lymphohematopoietic system, the prostate, male genital organs, and the central nervous system, as well as skin, eye, bone, connective tissue, peritoneal, and breast cancers. We tabulated study characteristics, quality, and results in a systematic manner, and evaluated all cancer types for which studies of at least three unique populations were available in a narrative review. We focused on study quality aspects most likely to impact the interpretation of results. We found that only one study, of medicinal talc use, evaluated direct exposure measurements for any individuals, though some used semi-quantitative exposure metrics, and few studies adequately assessed potential confounders. The only consistent associations were with ovarian cancer in case-control studies and these associations were likely impacted by recall and potentially other biases. This systematic review indicates that epidemiology studies do not support a causal association between occupational, medicinal, or personal talc exposure and any cancer in humans.
PubMed: 38868996
DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2024.2351081 -
Preventive Medicine Reports Jan 2024Cannabis legalization provides an opportunity to communicate with consumers through mandated health warnings on cannabis packaging. However, research on cannabis health... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cannabis legalization provides an opportunity to communicate with consumers through mandated health warnings on cannabis packaging. However, research on cannabis health warnings is a nascent field. Therefore, a review is needed to synthesize cannabis health warning research and inform ongoing policy discussions.
METHODS
This paper used systematic review guidelines to search online databases, including PubMed Central, Scopus, Web of Science, Jstor, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Medline, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Search strings combined the terms "cannabis" or "marijuana" with "health warning" or "health warning message" or "warning label" or "health warning label" or "health information label." Results were synthesized narratively.
RESULTS
The search identified 90 research articles. After screening, 17 studies on the impact of cannabis health warnings were retained. Retained studies focused on the hypothetical effects of cannabis health warnings ( = 11; 64.7 %) and "real world" effects of implementing warnings post-legalization ( = 6; 35.3 %). Evidence indicated mandated cannabis health warnings improved noticing and recall of health warning content. Cannabis health warnings describing risks of addiction were consistently rated the least effective. Pictorial cannabis health warnings generally outperformed text-only warnings when displayed on their own, while experiments with warnings on products had mixed results. Cannabis health warnings decreased product appeal, mainly when package branding was minimized.
CONCLUSIONS
Health warnings on cannabis packaging are an important strategy to communicate risk to consumers. Mandating warnings increased notice, recall, and health knowledge. Warnings with pictures and describing specific risks were most effective, as was showing warnings without product branding.
PubMed: 38222305
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102573