Preview Newsletter
J&J Talc 4/13
-
Johnson & Johnson lawsuit set to begin after the company knowingly hid baby powder's cancer risk
Apr 12, 2016 | Natural News
By Daniel Barker
Johnson & Johnson is being sued by more than 1,000 women who developed ovarian cancer after using the company's Baby Powder product. -
Trial Opens in Baby Powder-Cancer Case Amid Claims J&J Worked to Stop Talc Regulation
Apr 13, 2016 | CVN
By Arlin Crisco
Attorneys debated Tuesday whether the talc in Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused a woman’s cancer, and whether the company acted responsibly in light of research on talc's potential effects, as trial opened against the conglomerate and its talc supplier.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
-
Johnson & Johnson lawsuit set to begin after the company knowingly hid baby powder's cancer risk
Apr 12, 2016 | Natural News
By Daniel Barker
Johnson & Johnson is being sued by more than 1,000 women who developed ovarian cancer after using the company's Baby Powder product. The lawsuit is based on the assertion that the company knew their product was associated with an increased cancer risk but deliberately withheld that information from the public.
For generations, women have used the product to keep the genital area feeling "fresh and clean," as one plaintiff (who has since died from the disease) put it.
A link between talcum powder – the main ingredient in Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder – and ovarian cancer has been suspected for 45 years, but the company ignored the scientific findings, even after further statistical studies in 1982 confirmed the link.
Over the years, Johnson & Johnson has put a great deal of effort in convincing consumers that their products – particularly their line of baby products, which includes J&J Baby Powder – are safe and trustworthy. It is believed that this may be the reason the company withheld the information linking their baby powder product with ovarian cancer – they wanted to protect their reputation at all costs.
The truth about one of America's most "trusted" brands
But Johnson & Johnson products are not nearly as safe as the company would like consumers to believe. In fact, there have been a number of lawsuits in recent years involving J&J products.
From Bloomberg.com:
Johnson & Johnson has spent more than $5 billion to resolve legal claims over its drugs and medical devices since 2013. That year, it agreed to pay $2.2 billion to settle criminal and civil probes into claims that it illegally marketed Risperdal, an antipsychotic drug, to children and the elderly; two other medicines were included in the settlement. It was one of the largest health fraud penalties in U.S. history. The company has also agreed to pay some $2.8 billion to resolve lawsuits about its artificial hips and $120 million for faulty vaginal-mesh inserts. In its 2015 annual report, J&J stated that more than 75,000 people had filed product liability claims, and that didn't include the talc powder cases.
In 1982, a study by Daniel Cramer, an epidemiologist at Brigham & Women's Hospital in Boston, was published showing a statistical link between genital talcum powder use and ovarian cancer. Shortly after, Cramer was contacted by J&J executive Bruce Semple, who asked for a meeting between the two.
In Cramer's testimony from a 2011 court filing:
Dr. Semple spent his time trying to convince me that talc use was a harmless habit, while I spent my time trying to persuade him to consider the possibility that my study could be correct and that women should be advised of this potential risk of talc.
Cramer now says he believes the chief motivation behind the withholding of the information was to protect the company's reputation. "I don't think this was a question of money," he said. "I think it was pride of ownership. Baby Powder is a signature product for J&J."
The revelations about Johnson & Johnson are a glaring example of how American corporations are willing to lie and withhold vital information regarding the safety of products that generate billions in profits.
The tobacco industry, of course, is another example.
A cynical breach of trust in pursuit of profitsIt is shameful when a company spends so much time and effort to build a trusted reputation, while covering up any evidence that their products may be unsafe.
Johnson & Johnson's carefully constructed corporate image has led millions to believe that the company actually cares about the health of people who buy its products, and that those products are completely safe.
In fact, it's difficult to think of any other company that has successfully cultivated more trust from its customers – until now.
Sadly, it seems that J&J is just as cynical, deceitful and profit-minded as the tobacco industry – it turns out they are just another corporate wolf dressed in sheep's clothing.http://www.naturalnews.com/053632_Johnson_and_talcum_powder_ovarian_cancer.html
-
Trial Opens in Baby Powder-Cancer Case Amid Claims J&J Worked to Stop Talc Regulation
Apr 13, 2016 | CVN
By Arlin Crisco
Attorneys debated Tuesday whether the talc in Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused a woman’s cancer, and whether the company acted responsibly in light of research on talc's potential effects, as trial opened against the conglomerate and its talc supplier. Ristesund v. Johnson & Johnson, 1422-CC09012-01.
Gloria Ristesund, 62, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2011 and underwent a hysterectomy after decades of using Johnson's Baby Powder in her genital area. She claims her cancer was caused by talcum powder in the product, which she says Imerys Talc America supplied and J&J sold, despite knowing of a link between talc and ovarian cancer.
J&J “put a corporate philosophy of profit over the safety of their customers for nearly the entire exposure period of Ms. Ristesund to Johnson & Johnson baby powder,” Ristesund’s attorney, the Smith Law Firm’s Allen Smith told jurors Tuesday.
Smith said Johnson & Johnson knew of epidemiological studies connecting talcum powder use and ovarian cancer for decades but continued to sell baby powder with talc, rather than offer cornstarch-based powder exclusively, as other manufacturers had done.
Internal documents, Smith contended, would show J&J implemented a “defense strategy” to prevent government regulation of talc and ignored government entreaties to remove talc from its baby powder or warn its customers. “They used language like ‘A battle we cannot afford to lose,’” Smith said, telling jurors the company spearheaded a talc-interested task force charged with preventing the mineral’s regulation.
Smith claimed J&J also ignored its own talc supplier, Imerys, which began including warnings in 2006 about genital talc use and ovarian cancer in its shipments to J&J representatives. “Despite [those warnings], Johnson & Johnson, to this day the evidence will show, has not warned the consuming public,” Smith said.
But J&J contends studies linking ovarian cancer are inconclusive and undermined by the weight of research. “We’re here because Ms. Ristesund claims that baby powder, a product that’s been on the market and used for 125 years by our mothers, our grandmothers, and all our babies, caused [her] ovarian cancer,” Butler Snow’s Christy Jones told jurors Tuesday. “Nobody knows what causes ovarian cancer.”
Jones criticized the epidemiological studies Smith cited, and she highlighted competing research over the decades that found no link between talc use and cancer. While she acknowledged the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, classified talc as “possibly carcinogenic” in 2006, she noted “That classification includes things like coffee [and] pickled vegetables. Things that don’t carry any warning and have not been shown to cause [cancer].”
Jones claimed IARC’s classification prompted the Imerys warning in 2006, but J&J, which she said closely monitored studies on talc throughout the decades, ultimately concluded the strongest scientific research shows no link between talc and cancer. “Johnson & Johnson did not warn,” Jones said, “because it did not believe then, or now, that talc used in the genital area cause[s] ovarian cancer.”
Talc miner Imerys, also named in Ristesund’s suit, adds that medical evidence will prove plaintiff's cancer was not caused by talc. On Tuesday, Gordon Rees’ Nancy Erfle told jurors Ristesund carried several known risk factors for the cancer, including her age and weight, while medical testimony would show Ristesund’s ovaries showed no signs of the powder. “Talc wasn’t actually in her [ovarian] tissue,” Erfle said.
“We’ve got someone who will come in [to testify] who treats women, day-in and day-out,” Erfle said. “And you won’t hear a doctor like that for the plaintiff.”
This is the second state court suit to go to trial over cancer allegedly caused by J&J's baby powder. In February, jurors hit J&J with a $72 million verdict over the fatal ovarian cancer of a Missouri woman who had used the company’s baby powder for more than 35 years. The jury in that case cleared Imerys of liability.
About a thousand similar cases are pending in Missouri alone, with a growing number filed throughout the country.
Trial is expected to last about two weeks.
Neither the companies’ representatives nor the parties’ attorneys could immediately be reached for comment.
http://blog.cvn.com/trial-opens-in-baby-powder-cancer-case-amid-claims-jj-tried-to-stop-government-regulation
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Add recipients
Suggested