California strongly considering declaring acetaminophen a carcinogen

[AUS-97HORN 11874]

good grief.

I cant wait for all the scumbag ambulance chasing lawyer adds on TV telling all the easily swayed stay at home people that they can join a class action lawsuit against the makers of Tylenol, Excedrin, Tusin and Sudafed

of course, the FDA has explicitly warned states to not include acetaminophen as being a carcinogen because the study correlations are very weak and could be impacted by many other factors.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A fight is coming to California over whether to list one of the world's most common over-the-counter drugs as a carcinogen, echoing recent high-profile battles over things like alcohol and coffee. 

The drug is acetaminophen, known outside the U.S. as paracetamol and used to treat pain and fevers. It is the basis for more than 600 prescription and over-the-counter medications for adults and children, found in well-known brands like Tylenol, Excedrin, Sudafed, Robitussin and Theraflu.

Acetaminophen has been available in the U.S. without a prescription since 1955. Concerns about its potential link to cancer come from its relationship to another drug: phenacetin. That drug, once a common treatment for headaches and other ailments, was banned by the FDA in 1983 because it caused cancer.

State regulators have reviewed 133 studies about acetaminophen, all of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. Some studies reported an increased risk of some types of cancers, while others did not. Overall, the review noted acetaminophen has been difficult to examine because it is hard to isolate it from other variables that could contribute to cancer, such as smoking.

A state law known as Proposition 65 says California must warn people of any chemical known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The state's list has grown to about 900 chemicals, including toxic pesticides and flame retardants, and is more extensive than any in the U.S. Some critics say California regulators have been overzealous, requiring warning labels for countless products that confuse instead of inform consumers when the risk of cancer is disputed.

Supporters of Prop 65 say it protects not only Californians but consumers nationwide by compelling manufacturers to make products safer.

Evidence for acetaminophen's link to cancer has been weak enough that the International Agency for Research on Cancer declined to list it as a possible carcinogen following reviews in 1990 and 1999. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has warned state officials that labeling acetaminophen as cancer-causing would be “false and misleading” and also illegal under federal law.

A panel of scientists appointed by the governor can add chemicals to this list. In 2011, the panel voted to make acetaminophen a “high priority” for consideration because it believed there was relevant evidence to consider, according to Sam Delson, spokesman for the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

The review process has been slow, but the panel is scheduled to have a public hearing on the listing this spring after the public comment period closes on Jan. 27.

“It's a difficult issue because it's a very commonly used drug. But that doesn't make any difference. That's not what our mandate is,” said Thomas Mack, chairman of the Carcinogen Identification Committee and a professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California.

Adding a chemical to the list can have broad repercussions. After the state listed glyphosate — widely known as the weed killer Roundup — as a carcinogen in 2017, a jury ordered the company that makes Roundup to pay a California couple with cancer more than $2 billion. A judge later reduced that award to $87 million. That's just one of the estimated 13,000 pending lawsuits involving the chemical.

That's one reason why the industry is pushing back on a potential listing. The Consumer Healthcare Products Association, a trade group representing over-the-counter medicines and dietary supplements, conducted its own review and found most studies suggest no risk for most forms of cancer, although some studies did show increased risk for kidney, liver and some forms of blood cancer.

The association urged California regulators to have a “cautious interpretation” of studies that show an increased risk of cancer.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/health-news/california-considers-declaring-common-pain-killer-carcinogen/ar-BBZbeW2

 

[BabaYaga 15371]

I'd tell these pharma companeis the same advice my dear old Dad told me over a pair of Coors Yellow bellies before I made the long and illustrious trip to Jester from my humble abode in E. Austin

Just pull out....not worth it.  

[Serak The Preparer 3436]

14 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

good grief.

I cant wait for all the scumbag ambulance chasing lawyer adds on TV telling all the easily swayed stay at home people that they can join a class action lawsuit against the makers of Tylenol, Excedrin, Tusin and Sudafed

of course, the FDA has explicitly warned states to not include acetaminophen as being a carcinogen because the study correlations are very weak and could be impacted by many other factors.

 

 

"Strongly considering"? What does that mean? Given that this was not included within the title of the link you included, you added this for emphasis. What makes you think this is being strongly considered?

[Gene Parmesan 4022]

Yawn.  Wake me up when the strenuously consider it.

[Newdoc 3465]

I will take my kid not frying his brain with a febrile seizure over the loosely correlated risk of cancer.

[High Plains Drifter 11055]

29 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

I will take my kid not frying his brain with a febrile seizure over the loosely correlated risk of cancer.

Are there alternatives that treat high fevers as well and aren't correlated, however loosely, with cancer?

[Gene Parmesan 4022]

5 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Are there alternatives that treat high fevers as well and aren't correlated, however loosely, with cancer?

It's ibuprofen and Tylenol in our cabinet.  I have no idea if ibuprofen is linked to cancer but it doesn't contain acetaminophen.  Of course when the fevers are bad the kids will be on both.

[CHIEF 5096]

I had a chemist for a pharmaceutical company tell me that he doesn't believe that acetaminophen would even be on the market, if it had to go through Today's FDA, due to liver toxicity.

CHIEF 

[Wally Fairway 5600]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

I'd tell these pharma companeis the same advice my dear old Dad told me over a pair of Coors Yellow bellies before I made the long and illustrious trip to Jester from my humble abode in E. Austin

Just pull out....not worth it.  

You do realize that he was talking about you, right?

[TwiceHorn 31677]

In case you haven't noticed, Cali has this regulation, known as Prop 65, that requires companies selling products containing ingredients linked in any way to cancer to label them with a warning.

The state maintains a list of things that require the warning.  

This would put acetaminophen on the list.

The regulation is dumb, and this is probably dumber still.  But it's all a confederacy of dunces.

It wouldn't give rise to lawsuits.

[Hornius Emeritus 12496]

1 hour ago, CHIEF said:

I had a chemist for a pharmaceutical company tell me that he doesn't believe that acetaminophen would even be on the market, if it had to go through Today's FDA, due to liver toxicity.

CHIEF 

 

Not doubting you, but are you sure that he wasn't talking about ibuprofen? 

[TwiceHorn 31677]

Most analgesics are metabolized through the liver and pose some risk for mild liver damage.  Acetaminophen is worse than most and can not only damage the liver, but cause liver failure, at dosages that are large, but easily achieved by the home user with a bottle of Tylenol.

[Iceman 2794]

I just eat 12 bowls of oatmeal every morning to offset the risk...

[BabaYaga 15371]

3 minutes ago, Iceman said:

I just eat 12 bowls of oatmeal every morning to offset the risk...

[BabaYaga 15371]

39 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

You do realize that he was talking about you, right?

I'm Daddy's "special" boy.....

[StruggleBus 3922]

First you took my straws and gave me some shitty ones that melt after 3 minutes. Take my Tylenol and I'll fight you. 

[elfenix 34385]

Just now, StruggleBus said:

First you took my straws and gave me some shitty ones that melt after 3 minutes. Take my Tylenol and I'll fight you. 

only women and children use straws.

[Newdoc 3465]

2 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Are there alternatives that treat high fevers as well and aren't correlated, however loosely, with cancer?

Ibuprofen if over six months of age but in the real world it has its own landmines.

[StruggleBus 3922]

7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

only women and children use straws.

That's just your opinion

[CHIEF 5096]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Most analgesics are metabolized through the liver and pose some risk for mild liver damage.  Acetaminophen is worse than most and can not only damage the liver, but cause liver failure, at dosages that are large, but easily achieved by the home user with a bottle of Tylenol.

That's how the conversation came up. I knew an ex-EMT that was fired for telling a girl that had attempted suicide 5 or 6 times, "take 25 Tylenol, so we can just get this over with." Apparently it would cause irreversible liver failure. I haven't taken acetaminophen in probably 25 years.

CHIEF

[Pato del Muerto 52853]

The liver damage from acetaminophen is why they tell you to alternate it and ibuprofen when treating fevers. 
 

it’s a much more real risk than cancer. 

[Cajun 11764]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

only women and children use straws.

What are you, Tony Montana?

[Serak The Preparer 3436]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

In case you haven't noticed, Cali has this regulation, known as Prop 65, that requires companies selling products containing ingredients linked in any way to cancer to label them with a warning.

The state maintains a list of things that require the warning.  

This would put acetaminophen on the list.

The regulation is dumb, and this is probably dumber still.  But it's all a confederacy of dunces.

It wouldn't give rise to lawsuits.

100% agree that Prop 65 is dumb. By treating things as binary in terms of risk, it leads to silly things like labeling of coffee shops as hot-spots of carcinogens. The scare mongering of "CA strongly considering declaring XXX a carcinogen" is almost (but not quite) as dumb. Much dumber was the implication that labeling the glyosophates within Roundup as carcinogen resulted in the lawsuits awarded. 

[Ellellelle 324]

My aunt od'ed on Tylenol back in the day. As far as we know, it was accidental. She did recover from it but she had a host of health problems which lead to the od (she had severe and difficult to control lupus which wrecked her kidneys).

Acetaminophen is one of the few drugs that pregnant women can take. It would really suck if it got removed from the safe list because of this.

[WBT 20735]

Ibuprofen seems much more effective anyway

[Foosters 17918]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

In case you haven't noticed, Cali has this regulation, known as Prop 65, that requires companies selling products containing ingredients linked in any way to cancer to label them with a warning.

The state maintains a list of things that require the warning.  

This would put acetaminophen on the list.

The regulation is dumb, and this is probably dumber still.  But it's all a confederacy of dunces.

It wouldn't give rise to lawsuits.

This should be stickied under the OP.

[Murfdogg21 4480]

Murfdogg strongly considering declaring living in California a mental health risk.

[Reagan1k 3026]

I see industrial equipment - blowers, motors, all kinds of shit that now have to have Prop 65 or whatever that BS is labels all over them.  As if someone is going to lick a compressor or eat motor windings. 

They cant solve their real problems so they swing at straw men and pat themselves on the back. 

The cost of compliance for irrelevant products to do all this labeling is huge.  What a waste. 

[Bullneck 19315]

7 hours ago, AUS-97HORN said:

good grief.

I cant wait for all the scumbag ambulance chasing lawyer adds on TV telling all the easily swayed stay at home people that they can join a class action lawsuit against the makers of Tylenol, Excedrin, Tusin and Sudafed

of course, the FDA has explicitly warned states to not include acetaminophen as being a carcinogen because the study correlations are very weak and could be impacted by many other factors.

 

 

I like how California doesn't give a shit about other states and how they bow to industry pressure groups.  You know how long it took to have labels on cigarettes stating the obvious?  Thanks Jesse Helms.

[Samson's Wig 3195]

4 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

Not doubting you, but are you sure that he wasn't talking about ibuprofen? 

No.  NSAIDs don't harm your liver.  There is evidence that they're not good for your heart, though.

[topochico 1049]

5 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

No.  NSAIDs don't harm your liver.  There is evidence that they're not good for your heart, though.

And they cause gastrointestinal bleeding. 

[Incredulity 11686]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

In case you haven't noticed, Cali has this regulation, known as Prop 65, that requires companies selling products containing ingredients linked in any way to cancer to label them with a warning.

The state maintains a list of things that require the warning.  

This would put acetaminophen on the list.

The regulation is dumb, and this is probably dumber still.  But it's all a confederacy of dunces.

It wouldn't give rise to lawsuits.

Ummm... it absolutely will.  There is a class of “lawyers” in CA that make there entire practice on litigation associated with Prop 65

[TwiceHorn 31677]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Ummm... it absolutely will.  There is a class of “lawyers” in CA that make there entire practice on litigation associated with Prop 65

That is probably true, but not in the way OP envisioned.  For failure to make Prop 65 warnings, not because anything listed in Prop 65 actually might cause cancer.  It's not evidence of a cancer risk sufficient to sustain a lawsuit for causing cancer.

And this wouldn't make that aspect of Prop 65 worse than it is.  

Edited January 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Anastasis 23498]

Risk/benefit. How does it work?

[Sandman 3420]

13 hours ago, Bullneck said:

I like how California doesn't give a shit about other states and how they bow to industry pressure groups.  You know how long it took to have labels on cigarettes stating the obvious?  Thanks Jesse Helms.

I bought a pack of smokes when I was in Canada in the mid 90s. There wasn't a little warning label about "cigarettes could be hazardous", there was a huge label on the front "CIGARETTES WILL KILL YOUR UNBORN CHILD". Still have that empty pack somewhere.

[Js1 85744]

15 hours ago, Serak The Preparer said:

100% agree that Prop 65 is dumb. By treating things as binary in terms of risk, it leads to silly things like labeling of coffee shops as hot-spots of carcinogens. The scare mongering of "CA strongly considering declaring XXX a carcinogen" is almost (but not quite) as dumb. Much dumber was the implication that labeling the glyosophates within Roundup as carcinogen resulted in the lawsuits awarded. 

Sir, California did a thing. Therefore, the sissy Texas men who parade as tough guys must whine and cry on the internet about it. 

[Iceman 2794]

13 hours ago, Bullneck said:

I like how California doesn't give a shit about other states and how they bow to industry pressure groups.  You know how long it took to have labels on cigarettes stating the obvious?  Thanks Jesse Helms.

The notion that the label makes a fucking difference in anyone's life choices is preposterous.

[Anastasis 23498]

Link below is the review of the literature the CA agency pulled together.  Review of the relevant human studies starts around page 12. Limitations in terms of capture of potential confounders and exposure, study designs, etc. To the extent that there may be a signal here, if you squint really hard, it appears to be kidney cancers (eg. renal cell carcinoma). This is also the cancer type that was associated with phenacetin (prodrug of acetaminophen, your body converts phenacetin into acetaminophen which is the active entity), so that would be a logical place to focus interest. The scientific review does not make any recommendations regarding the label determination.  

https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/acetaminophenhid092019.pdf

 

[safe sex 11807]

13 hours ago, Samson's Wig said:

No.  NSAIDs don't harm your liver.  There is evidence that they're not good for your heart, though.

They can also wreck your kidneys if taken chronically.

[BillyGoatHill 4331]

1 hour ago, trauma babe said:

They can also wreck your kidneys if taken chronically.

Kenny Easley says Hello...

[CooterBrown 18089]

Ibuprofen if over six months of age but in the real world it has its own landmines.

Except for those with heart issues since it can cause strokes and heart attacks.

[Newdoc 3465]

Just now, CooterBrown said:

Except for those with heart issues since it can cause strokes and heart attacks.

Yes, overall, Tylenol is safer than NSAIDS like ibuprofen. I recommend not getting a fever, pain or any other illness. That will be your $30 copay please.

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

I hope they do.  Cold water extraction of hydrocodone is such a pain in the ass.  

[Iceman 2794]

oxygen promotes the aging process, and thus, death.

[elfenix 34385]

10 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

Yes, overall, Tylenol is safer than NSAIDS like ibuprofen. I recommend not getting a fever, pain or any other illness. That will be your $30 copay please.

  i think all i got is acetylsalicylic acid, generic. see, i can get six hundred tablets of that for the same price as three hundred of a name brand.  that makes good financial sense, good advice

[Lhorn 5024]

17 hours ago, topochico said:

And they cause gastrointestinal bleeding. 

Exactly.  There are a metric shit ton of folk who due to age, history of ulcers, taking blood thinners or kidney disease cannot take NSAID type pain medications such as ibuprofen.  Tylenol is their friend.  Otherwise it's largely narcotics (or other prescription medications such as lyrica, gabapentin, tramadol etc who's use is more as an adjacent or niche in many cases and who carry their own potential for misuse and scary side effects). 

 

I have an understanding of the reason they do such things (prop 65) but when you interact with thousands of innocuous products every day for which avoiding their use is pretty much impossible, what's the point?  No one's gonna not buy or use a motor vehicle because the lubricant's in it's engine are listed by prop 65.  

Edited January 23, 2020 by Lhorn

[Foosters 17918]

40 minutes ago, Lhorn said:

 

I have an understanding of the reason they do such things (prop 65) but when you interact with thousands of innocuous products every day for which avoiding their use is pretty much impossible, what's the point?  No one's gonna not buy or use a motor vehicle because the lubricant's in it's engine are listed by prop 65.  

My issue with it is that it causes "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. I see so many of those signs around, that I generally just assume everything is harmless and ignore them.

[HouTex 1901]

They can also wreck your kidneys if taken chronically.

I was taking two each morning for about a year to manage some chronic elbow pain. At my annual physical my blood work came back showing decreased kidney function. Dr said I was an idiot for taking IB for so long. Luckily, it wasn’t permanent.

[BabaYaga 15371]

13 minutes ago, HouTex said:

I was taking two each morning for about a year to manage some chronic elbow pain. At my annual physical my blood work came back showing decreased kidney function. Dr said I was an idiot for taking IB for so long. Luckily, it wasn’t permanent.

It's also hell on your gutt biom.  Irinically, leading to more physical discomfort, and facilitating a vicious cycle of taking more and more pain killers.  

[Lhorn 5024]

26 minutes ago, Foosters said:

My issue with it is that it causes "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. I see so many of those signs around, that I generally just assume everything is harmless and ignore them.

In my opinion this is 100% happening.  When every thing has a warning, they're meaningless.