Preview Newsletter
talc 5/4
-
Johnson & Johnson Faces Growing Threat of Lawsuits Over Talc and Cancer
May 3, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Jonathan D. Rockoff
Johnson & Johnson is appealing two recent jury verdicts awarding a total of $127 million to women who blame their ovarian cancer on talc in the company’s iconic baby powder. -
Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $55M in Talcum Powder Cancer Case
May 3, 2016 | Time
By Tara John
Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $55 million to an American woman who says the company’s talcum powder caused her to develop ovarian cancer. -
Johnson & Johnson to pay $55M in second talc-powder cancer lawsuit
May 3, 2016 | USA Today
By Mary Bowerman
A jury ordered Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) to pay $55 million to a woman who claims talc in the company’s baby powder caused her ovarian cancer. -
Johnson & Johnson loses another talcum powder cancer lawsuit
May 3, 2016 | AP in Los Angeles Times
By Martha Bellisle
For the second time in three months, a St. Louis jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a huge award over claims that its talcum powder causes cancer. -
Jury slaps J&J with $55M in damages in talcum-powder cancer case
May 3, 2016 | FiercePharma
By Tracy Staton
Johnson & Johnson ($JNJ) lost another jury trial over cancer risks associated with its talc-based body powders. This time, jurors ordered J&J to pay $55 million to a woman who claimed her ovarian cancer was triggered by routine use of the J&J products. -
Johnson & Johnson Loses 2nd Talcum Suit
May 3, 2016 | The Daily Beast
Johnson & Johnson has lost another lawsuit related to its talcum-powder products—a second in just three months. A St. Louis jury on Monday ordered the consumer-products giant to pay $55 million in damages to Gloria Ristesund, who claimed using the company’s products for 35 years caused her ovarian cancer. -
J&J: Ovarian cancer ads saturating St. Louis market include info not allowed at trial
May 3, 2016 | Madison - St. Clair Record
Attorney advertising has prejudiced the regional jury pool against Johnson & Johnson, the company argued between trials that resulted in verdicts of $72 million and $55 million. -
VIDEO: Jury awards $55M in Talcum Powder Cancer Suit
May 3, 2016 | USA Today
Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $55 million to a woman who claims its talcum powder caused her ovarian cancer, the second such judgement against the manufacturer in three months. -
VIDEO: Jury orders Johnson and Johnson to pay cancer survivor
May 3, 2016 | CBS News
By Anna Werner
A St Louis jury has awarded $55 million to a woman who said talcum in Johnson and Johnson's Baby Powder gave her ovarian cancer. It's the second such verdict against the company in recent months. -
VIDEOS: Johnson & Johnson Case: Can Talcum Powder Really Cause Cancer?
May 3, 2016 | NBC News
By Maggie Fox
Johnson & Johnson lost a second lawsuit Tuesday when a Missouri jury ordered the company to pay $55 million to a woman who said the company's talcum-powder products caused her ovarian cancer. -
VIDEO: Johnson & Johnson just lost another multi-million dollar lawsuit over cancer risks associated with baby powder
May 3, 2016 | Business Insider
A jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $55 million over baby powder. In February, the company also lost a $72 million lawsuit regarding health risks with their products. -
VIDEO: Should you use talcum powder after Johnson & Johnson cancer lawsuits?
May 4, 2016 | The Herald
By Elizabeth Koh
Women are suing Johnson & Johnson because of a potential link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer, but you shouldn’t throw out your own baby powder quite yet. The science is still out on a proven connection, and the company is fighting off additional lawsuits and appealing its lost cases. Most recently, 62-year-old Gloria Ristesund alleged that Johnson & Johnson hadn’t adequately warned consumers about a possible link between talc powder and ovarian cancer on their products. She was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 after using the company’s talc-based powders for feminine hygiene for four decades. -
VIDEO: Talcum powder's links to ovarian cancer: What it really means
May 4, 2016 | CNN
By Ford Vox
Does talcum powder — powder that many have slathered on babies for generations -- really cause cancer? There are more than 1,000 women lined up to sue Johnson & Johnson over just that: cancer diagnoses they attribute to the company's talcum powder products. -
Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $55m to woman who 'got cancer from talc products'
May 3, 2016 | International Business Times
By Brendan Cole
A US jury has ordered the company Johnson & Johnson to pay $55m to a woman who said she got ovarian cancer from using its talcum products. After a three-week trial in Missouri, Gloria Ristesund was awarded $5m in compensatory damages and $50m in punitive damages. -
VIDEO: Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $55m to survivor in talc cancer case
May 4, 2016 | Independent
By Jim Salter
Twice in the past three months, juries have awarded tens of millions of dollars to ovarian cancer victims who blamed Johnson & Johnson talcum powder for their illness — among the first verdicts in a gathering courtroom assault by law firms that are aggressively recruiting clients through TV ads and the Internet.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
EMEA Coverage
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Johnson & Johnson Faces Growing Threat of Lawsuits Over Talc and Cancer
May 3, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Jonathan D. Rockoff
Johnson & Johnson is appealing two recent jury verdicts awarding a total of $127 million to women who blame their ovarian cancer on talc in the company’s iconic baby powder.
The monetary awards have raised the specter that women’s use of talcum powder may be to blame for some cases of ovarian cancer, though research into a possible link has returned mixed results and those studies finding a link showed only a slightly higher risk of the cancer.
“Unfortunately, the jury’s decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,” J&J said in a statement, responding to the latest verdict on Monday.
In that case, a jury in St. Louis awarded $55 million to Gloria Ristesund, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2011. In the same court in February, a jury awarded $72 million to the family of Jacqueline Fox, an Alabama woman who died from ovarian cancer.
Another jury, considering a talc lawsuit in a South Dakota federal court, decided in 2013 that J&J was negligent but didn't award damages.
For the company, the threats posed by the personal-injury lawsuits come as J&J is trying to move past government investigations into off-label prescription-drug marketing, liability litigation over faulty hip and knee parts, and recalls of consumer products including children’s Tylenol.
The various matters have cost J&J billions of dollars in lost sales and legal settlements.
The New Brunswick, N.J.-based company says it faces 1,400 lawsuits involving Johnson’s Baby Powder. The lawsuits allege that talc in the powder caused ovarian cancer in women, and the company failed to warn customers about the risks.
Mark Lanier, a Houston lawyer who is representing some of the plaintiffs, said company documents dating to the 1970s show J&J was concerned about an association between talcum powder and ovarian cancer.
“If J&J believed it might cause cancer, then J&J had an absolute moral obligation to warn people,” Mr. Lanier said.
J&J said it acted appropriately. “Multiple scientific and regulatory reviews have determined that talc is safe for use in cosmetic products and the labeling on Johnson’s Baby Powder is appropriate,” the company said.
The American Cancer Society said on its website that research into a potential link between women’s use of talcum powder in the genital area and cancer of the ovary has been “mixed, with some studies reporting a slightly increased risk and some reporting no increase.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/jury-orders-johnson-johnson-to-pay-55m-in-cancer-suit-over-powder-1462277113?mg=id-wsj#:f_5a63jdZsknnA
-
Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $55M in Talcum Powder Cancer Case
May 3, 2016 | Time
By Tara John
Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $55 million to an American woman who says the company’s talcum powder caused her to develop ovarian cancer.
Following a three-week-long trial in Missouri, jurors decided on Monday in favor of Gloria Ristesund, Reuters reports. The 62-year-old plaintiff said she had used the company’s talc-based powders as feminine hygiene products for decades. According to her lawyers, she developed ovarian cancer and had to get a hysterectomy.
The decision follows a previous case in the same court in February, in which a family of a woman who died of ovarian cancer was awarded $72 million.
According to Reuters, the company is facing 1,2000 similar lawsuits, accusing the Johnson & Johnson of not adequately warning its consumers about the cancer risks to its talcum-based products, which include Baby Powder and Shower to Shower Powder.
J&J, reports Reuters, says its cosmetic talc is safe and that Monday’s verdict at the Missouri state court contradicts 30 years of research. The company intends to appeal the jury decision.
http://time.com/4316098/johnson-johnson-talcum-powder-cancer/
-
Johnson & Johnson to pay $55M in second talc-powder cancer lawsuit
May 3, 2016 | USA Today
By Mary Bowerman
A jury ordered Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) to pay $55 million to a woman who claims talc in the company’s baby powder caused her ovarian cancer.
On Monday, a jury in St. Louis, awarded Gloria Ristesund $5 million in damages and $50 million in punitive damages, Reuters reported.
The verdict comes months after a jury ordered the company to pay $72 million to the family of an Alabama woman who died from ovarian cancer allegedly caused by using the company’s Baby Powder and other products which contained talc.
Like the earlier case, Ristesund, used Johnson & Johnson baby powder and other products for feminine hygiene. She was later diagnosed with ovarian cancer, which is now in remission, Reuters reported.
She is just one of dozens of women suing the company for what they say was a failure to inform consumers about the dangers of talc, which is found in baby powder.
A 1997 internal memo from a company medical consultant said "anybody who denies” the risk of using hygienic talc and ovarian cancer is "denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary,” AP reported.
But “it’s hard to directly link ovarian cancer to talc," Eva Chalas, chief of Gynecologic Oncology and Director of Clinical Cancer Services at Winthrop-University Hospital, said in a February phone interview.
"The information on talc powder came out many years ago when they saw talc incorporated in the tissue of women with ovarian cancer," Chalas said. She said concerns over talc led many doctors to advise mothers to stop using talcum powder on their babies, and to discontinue use for feminine hygiene.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2016/05/03/johnson-johnson-baby-powder-talc-ovarian-cancer-case-55-million/83865636/
-
Johnson & Johnson loses another talcum powder cancer lawsuit
May 3, 2016 | AP in Los Angeles Times
By Martha Bellisle
For the second time in three months, a St. Louis jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a huge award over claims that its talcum powder causes cancer.
The jury deliberated eight hours Monday before ordering the company to pay $55 million to a South Dakota woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on years of talcum powder use.
In February, another St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to the family of an Alabama woman who died of ovarian cancer, which she said was caused by using Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and other talcum products.
New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson will appeal the latest ruling.
"Unfortunately, the jury's decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc," Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement.
"For over 100 years," she said, "Johnson & Johnson has provided consumers with a safe choice for cosmetic powder products and we will continue to work hard to exceed consumer expectations and evolving product preferences."
But Jim Onder, attorney for the plaintiff, Gloria Ristesund, said researchers began linking talcum powder to ovarian cancer in the 1970s, and he said internal Johnson & Johnson documents showed that the company was aware of those studies.
"The evidence is real clear that Johnson & Johnson has known about the dangers associated with talcum powder for over 30 years," Onder said. "Instead of giving a warning, what they did was target the groups most at risk for developing ovarian cancer," specifically marketing to overweight women, blacks and Latinos, he said.
A spokeswoman for Onder said Ristesund declined to comment.
Talc is naturally occurring, mined from soil and composed of magnesium, silicon, oxygen, and hydrogen. It's widely used in cosmetics and personal care products, such as talcum powder, to absorb moisture, prevent caking and improve the product's feel.
The American Cancer Society says most concerns about a link between talcum powder and cancer focus on two areas: Whether people with long-term exposure to natural talc fibers at work, such as talc miners, are at higher risk of lung cancer; and whether women who apply talc regularly in the genital area have increased risk of ovarian cancer.
The society, on its website, cites the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which classifies genital use of talc-based body powder as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."
In February, a St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to the family of Jackie Fox of Birmingham, Ala. Her son took over as plaintiff after her death in October at age 62. She had used the talcum powder for decades.
Johnson & Johnson faces at least 1,200 still-pending talcum powder lawsuits, including about 1,000 in St. Louis and 200 in New Jersey, Onder said.
Johnson & Johnson previously has been targeted by health and consumer groups over possibly harmful ingredients in items including its Johnson's No More Tears baby shampoo.
In May 2009, a coalition of groups called the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics began pushing Johnson & Johnson to eliminate questionable ingredients from its baby and adult personal care products. After three years of petitions, negative publicity and a boycott threat, the company agreed in 2012 to eliminate the ingredients 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde, both considered probable human carcinogens, from all products by 2015.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-talcum-powder-cancer-20160503-story.html
-
Jury slaps J&J with $55M in damages in talcum-powder cancer case
May 3, 2016 | FiercePharma
By Tracy Staton
Johnson & Johnson ($JNJ) lost another jury trial over cancer risks associated with its talc-based body powders. This time, jurors ordered J&J to pay $55 million to a woman who claimed her ovarian cancer was triggered by routine use of the J&J products.
In February, a jury in the same St. Louis, MO, court awarded $72 million to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer after years of using J&J powders, including Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower Powder.
This second damages award isn’t good news for the company, which faces more than 1,000 lawsuits claiming J&J downplayed the risks of talcum powder for years, and one lawyer in the litigation says he’s reviewing 5,000 more potential claims, Bloomberg reports. The company faces another jury trial in the same court in September.
Monday, the state court jurors awarded plaintiff Gloria Ristesund $5 million in compensation and $50 million in punitive damages; she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2011 and underwent a hysterectomy. Her cancer is now in remission.
J&J says it will appeal the decision and will continue defending its powder products.
Verdict-wise, this is J&J’s third defeat; a federal jury found that J&J was negligent but did not award damages, Bloomberg reports. Two defeats for J&J might nudge the company toward a settlement, one liability law expert told the news service.
“The more talc verdicts that come down against them adds to the public’s growing distrust of their baby powder, which is one of their iconic products,” University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said. “There are both economic and reputational issues that may motivate them to start thinking about a global settlement of these cases.”
But J&J disputes the jury’s verdict, saying that it contradicts decades of research into talcum products. And as the news service reports, the jury vote was 9-3, the minimum required, and a previous round of voting ended 7-5.
“Unfortunately, the jury’s decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the word that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,’’ spokeswoman Carole Goodrich said in an emailed statement. “Johnson & Johnson has always taken questions about the safety of our products extremely seriously.’’
http://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/jury-orders-j-j-to-pay-55m-second-talcum-powder-cancer-use
-
Johnson & Johnson Loses 2nd Talcum Suit
May 3, 2016 | The Daily Beast
Johnson & Johnson has lost another lawsuit related to its talcum-powder products—a second in just three months. A St. Louis jury on Monday ordered the consumer-products giant to pay $55 million in damages to Gloria Ristesund, who claimed using the company’s products for 35 years caused her ovarian cancer. Ristesund’s lawyers argued the company was aware of the health risks associated with the product, but did not appropriately warn customers. She was diagnosed with the cancer in 2011. “Internal documents from J & J show it knew of studies connecting talc use and ovarian cancer but, to this day, it continues to market it as safe—neglecting any warning,” Ristesund’s lawyers said in a statement after the verdict. J&J plans to appeal.
-
J&J: Ovarian cancer ads saturating St. Louis market include info not allowed at trial
May 3, 2016 | Madison - St. Clair Record
Attorney advertising has prejudiced the regional jury pool against Johnson & Johnson, the company argued between trials that resulted in verdicts of $72 million and $55 million.
City Circuit Judge Rex Burlison, who held the first trial in February, denied Johnson & Johnson’s motion to transfer the second trial to a venue at least 150 miles away.
That trial ended on Monday, with jurors awarding $5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages to South Dakota resident Gloria Ristesund.
Burlison plans to hold another trial in September.
Dozens of plaintiffs in three separate suits claim Johnson & Johnson talcum powder caused ovarian cancer.
They claim Johnson & Johnson concealed the risks from customers.
Johnson & Johnson argues that medical science has not linked talc, the primary component of talcum powder, to ovarian cancer.
The argument failed at the first trial, after Burlison denied a motion to exclude experts who would connect plaintiff Jacqueline Fox’s cancer to talc.
For the second trial, Johnson & Johnson adopted a strategy of flight.
“The onslaught of law firm television advertising about talc and ovarian cancer continues in St. Louis,” wrote attorney Gerard Noce of HeplerBroom.
“St. Louis is the primary market for advertising because plaintiffs need a St. Louis plaintiff to fix jurisdiction and venue in the city of St. Louis.”
Noce wrote that at a hearing in March, plaintiff counsel James Onder said, “There is incredible competition for city of St. Louis plaintiffs.”
Noce wrote, “While winning the competition may be paramount to the law firms, the court’s paramount concern must be ensuring a fair trial…There are now at least eight law firms running advertisements on television.
“There are also print and radio advertisements targeting the St. Louis market.
“These advertisements have tainted the jury pool for the Ristesund trial.”
He wrote that in March, law firms ran 830 advertisements about talc and ovarian cancer on St. Louis television stations.
“Over 83 percent of those advertisements contain information this court has ruled cannot be presented to the jury, such as the $72 million Fox verdict,” Noce wrote.
According to Noce, Onder’s firm ran seven local radio advertisements, and three mentioned the verdict. The firm ran a print advertisement in the St. Louis Business Journal that mentioned the verdict. It also ran national advertisements about the verdict on the Andy Griffith Show and In the Heat of the Night.
Noce wrote that Brown and Croupen mentioned it in two television advertisements that ran at least 416 times in March and would continue running during trial.
He inserted into the brief an image of a bearded pitchman with a $72 million headline and a telephone number.
Noce wrote that Gori Julian mentioned the verdict in two advertisements that aired 99 times.
He wrote that other firms advertised nationally on the Today Show, Law & Order, Gunsmoke, Jerry Springer Show, and other shows.
“These national ads and likely others are also being seen in St. Louis by potential jurors,” Noce wrote.
“Combined with ads running on local stations, the court should presume prejudice to defendants.”
Noce works at the St. Louis office of Hepler Broom. Beth Bauer, of the firm’s Edwardsville office, also represents Johnson & Johnson.
So do several lawyers at Shook, Hardy and Bacon in Kansas City, Mo.
William Blair and Stephanie Rados, both of Onder’s firm in Webster Groves, Mo., represent plaintiffs.
So do Timothy Porter, Patrick Malouf, and John Givens, all of Jackson, Miss., Allen Smith of Ridgeland, Miss., and Ted Meadows of Montgomery, Ala.
The same group has filed two suits in Madison County, where Circuit Judge William Mudge plans a management conference on June 29.
The Goldenberg Heller firm represents a talc plaintiff in U.S. district court, where District Judge David Herndon has set trial next February.
http://madisonrecord.com/stories/510722589-j-j-ovarian-cancer-ads-saturating-st-louis-market-include-info-not-allowed-at-trial
-
VIDEO: Jury awards $55M in Talcum Powder Cancer Suit
May 3, 2016 | USA Today
To access the video: http://www.usatoday.com/media/cinematic/video/83883024/jury-awards-55m-in-talcum-powder-cancer-suit/
Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $55 million to a woman who claims its talcum powder caused her ovarian cancer, the second such judgement against the manufacturer in three months.
-
VIDEO: Jury orders Johnson and Johnson to pay cancer survivor
May 3, 2016 | CBS News
By Anna Werner
To access video: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jury-orders-johnson-and-johnson-to-pay-cancer-survivor-55-million/
A St Louis jury has awarded $55 million to a woman who said talcum in Johnson and Johnson's Baby Powder gave her ovarian cancer. It's the second such verdict against the company in recent months.
The commercials from the 1970's and 80's helped convince thousands of American women to use Johnson and Johnson's Baby Powder, which contains talc.
Like many, 62-year-old Gloria Ristesund used it for feminine hygiene, until in 2011, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Her attorney Ted Meadows said talc was found in her ovarian tissue.
"There are studies that go back decades showing that genital use of talcum powder increases the risk of ovarian cancer," Meadows said.
He said there are some 1,200 similar cases filed against Johnson and Johnson around the country. In February, another St Louis jury awarded $72 million to the family of Jacqueline Fox of Birmingham, Alabama, who died of ovarian cancer last October. She too used Johnson and Johnson talcum powder products.
Johnson and Johnson said it will appeal the verdicts in both cases. In a videotaped statement, their chief medical officer defended the company's use of talc.
"We are confident in our position that there's no causal association between talc and ovarian cancer," said Dr. Joanne Waldstreicher.
The American Cancer Society said results of studies on a possible link between talcum powder or talc and ovarian cancer have been mixed: some reported a slightly increased risk, others, no increase.
But Dr. Daniel Cramer of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, an expert who testified for the plaintiffs in both cases, said the risks are clear to him.
"My advice has always been not to use talc on a regular basis in the genital area. And I haven't changed that opinion for 30 years," he said.
As for the woman who won the $55 million -- her ovarian cancer is now in remission. She and her attorneys want Johnson and Johnson to put warnings on their products, but the company maintains the science does not support the need for any warnings.
-
VIDEOS: Johnson & Johnson Case: Can Talcum Powder Really Cause Cancer?
May 3, 2016 | NBC News
By Maggie Fox
To access video: http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/johnson-johnson-case-can-talcum-powder-really-cause-cancer-n566926
Johnson & Johnson lost a second lawsuit Tuesday when a Missouri jury ordered the company to pay $55 million to a woman who said the company's talcum-powder products caused her ovarian cancer.
The company says it will appeal the decision — and claims the science backs it up. J&J is fighting about 1,200 lawsuits that allege the company knew about cancer risks but did not warn consumers. It lost the first lawsuit in February.
Here are some answers to questions about talc and cancer:
Can talc cause cancer?
Maybe — but there's not very much evidence to show that. According to the American Cancer Society, some talc in its natural form contains asbestos, which is known to cause cancers in and around the lungs when inhaled. "All talcum products used in homes in the United States have been asbestos-free since the 1970s," the American Cancer Society says on its website. The Food and Drug Administration says it has looked into this and hasn't found any asbestos in the products it checked.
"The evidence about asbestos-free talc, which is still widely used, is less clear," the American Cancer Society said. Some studies on animals have shown that talc can cause tumors, but others have not. Studies exploring potential links between talcum powder an ovarian cancer in women who use talc-based feminine hygiene products have also had mixed results. The most reliable types of studies, which don't rely on a woman's memory of whether she used talc, have shown no evidence talcum powder causes ovarian cancer.
"No increased risk of lung cancer has been reported with the use of cosmetic talcum powder," the American Cancer Society says.Did talc cause the plaintiff's ovarian cancer?
It's almost impossible to prove that any single person's cancer was caused by something specific. In some types of cancer, such as lung cancer, there are very clear and accepted causes, such as tobacco smoke and asbestos. In others, there may be a generally accepted link, such as sunlight or tanning beds and skin cancer, or chemicals such as benzene and blood cancers.
Ovarian cancer is not common. It affects about 21,000 U.S. women a year, and while there are clear genetic causes, doctors don't know what causes most cases. Because it's usually diagnosed too late to cure it, it kills most patients and is the fifth leading cause of cancer death among women.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, says genital use of talc-based body powder is "possibly carcinogenic to humans."
"For any individual woman, if there is an increased risk, the overall increase is likely to very be small," the American Cancer Society says. "Still, talc is widely used in many products, so it is important to determine if the increased risk is real. Research in this area continues.
"Is there still talc in baby powder?
Johnson's baby powder contains talc, according to the company's website, but the company also offers a version made with cornstarch.
Shower to Shower, the product named in both lawsuits Johnson has lost, contains both talc and cornstarch.
Many baby and body powder products are now made using cornstarch. "There is no evidence at this time linking cornstarch powders with any form of cancer," the American Cancer Society says.
-
May 3, 2016 | Business Insider
To access video: http://www.businessinsider.com/johnson-johnson-lost-lawsuit-baby-powder-cancer-2016-5?utm_content=buffer4a547&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
VIDEO: Should you use talcum powder after Johnson & Johnson cancer lawsuits?
May 4, 2016 | The Herald
By Elizabeth Koh
To access video: http://www.heraldonline.com/news/nation-world/national/article75287267.html
Women are suing Johnson & Johnson because of a potential link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer, but you shouldn’t throw out your own baby powder quite yet. The science is still out on a proven connection, and the company is fighting off additional lawsuits and appealing its lost cases.
Most recently, 62-year-old Gloria Ristesund alleged that Johnson & Johnson hadn’t adequately warned consumers about a possible link between talc powder and ovarian cancer on their products. She was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 after using the company’s talc-based powders for feminine hygiene for four decades.
Missouri jurors awarded Ristesund $55 million after hearing her case. Two earlier cases also found the company was negligent, though one did not award money to the victim.
More than a thousand additional plaintiffs are suing, and the next case is expected in September, according to Bloomberg.
The company said it would appeal Ristesund’s case, and maintains it adequately labels its products.
"Multiple scientific and regulatory reviews have determined that talc is safe for use in cosmetic products and the labeling on Johnson's Baby Powder is appropriate," said Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich in a statement.
What is in talcum powder?
Talcum powder comes from the mineral talc, and it isn’t just used in powder. The mineral is commonly found in other cosmetics too, in part because it keeps skin dry and can prevent chafing.
The Johnson & Johnson lawsuit concerns women who have used the powder on their genital areas.
Does it cause cancer?
It’s unlikely, according to the American Cancer Society. Studies so far have shown either a slight increase in cancer or none at all. Some of those studies rely on participants to remember how much talc they’ve used over many years, rather than measuring it over time, and memories are not always reliable.
According to the ACS, “if there is an increased risk, the overall increase is likely to be very small.”
A possible link between talc and lung cancer has also been studied, though those cases only concern miners who encounter natural talc containing some asbestos. Cosmetic talc powder is purified and does not pose an asbestos risk.
What else could I use?
If you want to reduce how much talcum powder you use, there are cornstarch-based alternatives, particularly for feminine use.
But whatever kind of powder you use should still be kept away from infants’ faces, per the American Academy of Pediatrics. And if you continue using talc, make sure you to avoid inhaling or swallowing it.
-
VIDEO: Talcum powder's links to ovarian cancer: What it really means
May 4, 2016 | CNN
By Ford Vox
To access video: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/03/opinions/talcum-powder-lawsuit-award-vox/
Does talcum powder — powder that many have slathered on babies for generations -- really cause cancer?There are more than 1,000 women lined up to sue Johnson & Johnson over just that: cancer diagnoses they attribute to the company's talcum powder products.
On Monday, a St. Louis jury ordered the company to pay $55 million to a South Dakota woman who had used talcum powder for years and has ovarian cancer.
But why did it take rainmaker attorneys to educate a jury from square one all the way to the point of ringing up a jackpot verdict? Johnson & Johnson positioned itself well as their target: Even though scientists have been publishing concerning studies for years, the company didn't forthrightly warn its customers there could be a major safety issue.
Talcum powder also managed to escape the oversight of federal agencies many consumers might imagine are always on high alert, surveilling the published literature for product safety concerns.So what's the big problem with a product millions of people have considered so safe they put it on babies during diaper change?
The theory is that talcum powder, when applied in the genital region, manages to work its way up through the vagina, the cervix, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and into the ovaries.The female reproductive system has, after all, evolved to facilitate the upward mobility of sperm in order to fertilize eggs that have descended into the uterus, and the microscopic particles of talcum powder may well keep traveling all the way up.Indeed, doctors have identified talc particles inside cancerous ovarian tissue.
Talc has also been found in pelvic lymph nodes, indicating that it made it all the way out of the fallopian tubes and into the abdominal space.In 2013, Deane Berg of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, was the first woman diagnosed with ovarian cancer to take on the medical and consumer products giant.
She came away without a dime awarded to her even though she won her suit; instead of awarding monetary damages the jury told Johnson & Johnson that it should affix a warning to its talc products like Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, one that says the product could cause cancer.And Berg's lawsuit laid historic legal groundwork: The company will now have to pay a combined $127 million in damages awarded in two cases by St. Louis juries this year if its appeals aren't successful.In the Berg lawsuit, Brigham and Women's Hospital obstetrician and gynecologist Dr. Daniel Cramer testified to his opinion that upwards of 10,000 women a year are developing ovarian cancer in part due to their use of talcum powder.Pathologist Dr. John Godleski, also at Brigham, found talc particles inside Berg's ovarian tumor tissue.I don't have records from the two St. Louis cases where juries have penalized Johnson & Johnson with megamillion-dollar awards to the plaintiffs, but I'd expect those juries saw similar evidence to what Berg presented in 2013.In fact, Cramer and his colleagues at Brigham just published a large study looking back at over 2,000 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer and comparing their use of talcum powder with that of a similar group of women who didn't have ovarian cancer.In showing a strong link between talc use and ovarian cancer, a 33% higher risk overall, the Brigham group specifically faulted another large study published in 2014 that didn't identify a risk. That study, Cramer wrote, didn't look at premenopausal women who seem to be at higher risk, and didn't properly weigh the role of estrogen use, which seems to be a necessary ingredient in upping the risk for ovarian cancer in postmenopausal women.The medical debate over whether talcum powder causes ovarian cancer goes back many decades, and the attorneys in these cases are demonstrating, through internal documents they've subpoenaed, that Johnson & Johnson knew about this research.They allege that Johnson & Johnson is akin to the tobacco companies that knew about research linking smoking to lung cancer but kept this information from the public and fought off attempts to regulate their product.
I don't think Johnson & Johnson deserves quite the opprobrium we reserve for the tobacco companies, since conflicting research did exist, but they and companies like them are setting themselves up for these kinds of lawsuits if they're not open and transparent with consumers.A smarter approach would have been to acknowledge the worrisome research studies in their consumer literature, on their websites, and to have flagged customers somehow on their product labeling to review this material with their doctors and decide for themselves whether and how to use the products.But it's not all Johnson & Johnson's responsibility. Federal agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Consumer Products Safety Commission need the authority and the funding to keep up with reported and published adverse effects of all consumer products, and actively weigh when mandatory warnings are necessary.Companies should welcome the federal agencies taking off some of the load -- Johnson & Johnson could have shared some of its liability with such an agency by regularly checking in about how it should act, or what warning it should issue, in light of recent research.We have a problem when it falls to trial juries to weigh the scientific data on a given product against a particular medical case and decide whether a company should be adding warning labels, or paying out large sums in the hopes the companies will learn a lesson.That's one way to get the job done, but it's after the fact, it's messy, and it's prone to error and excess. We can expect that appeals will significantly reduce these headline-grabbing jury awards.
-
Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $55m to woman who 'got cancer from talc products'
May 3, 2016 | International Business Times
By Brendan Cole
A US jury has ordered the company Johnson & Johnson to pay $55m to a woman who said she got ovarian cancer from using its talcum products. After a three-week trial in Missouri, Gloria Ristesund was awarded $5m in compensatory damages and $50m in punitive damages.
She had been using the Baby Powder and Shower to Shower Powder on her genitals for decades, the court in St Louis, Missouri heard. After a hysterectomy and other surgeries, her cancer is in remission.
It was the second straight legal defeat for the company which faces 1,200 lawsuits accusing it of not warning people about the cancer risks of its talc-based products, Reuters reported.More from IBTimes UK Australian smokers to cough up £23 for cigarettes by 2020 Hopes for truce in Aleppo as scores of civilians die under shelling German comedian accuses Merkel of 'serving him for tea' to Turkish president
J&J spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said the company would appeal the verdict which contradicted 30 years of research that found cosmetic talc was safe. J&J is also appealing a verdict handed down by the same court which awarded $72m to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer after using talc powder for years.
In a statement, J&J said: "For over 100 years, Johnson & Johnson has provided consumers with a safe choice for cosmetic powder products and we will continue to work hard to exceed consumer expectations and evolving product preferences."
Scientists have told Reuters the evidence of a real danger is inconclusive.
Jim Onder, attorney for the plaintiff, Gloria Ristesund, said internal Johnson & Johnson documents showed that the company was aware of those studies linking talcum powder to ovarian cancer in the 1970s.
"Instead of giving a warning, what they did was targeted the groups most at risk for developing ovarian cancer," specifically marketing to overweight women, he said, according to the Associated Press.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/johnson-johnson-ordered-pay-55m-woman-who-got-cancer-talc-products-1558070
-
VIDEO: Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $55m to survivor in talc cancer case
May 4, 2016 | Independent
By Jim Salter
To access video: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/johnson-johnson-ordered-to-pay-55-million-to-survivor-in-talc-cancer-case-a7012411.html
Twice in the past three months, juries have awarded tens of millions of dollars to ovarian cancer victims who blamed Johnson & Johnson talcum powder for their illness — among the first verdicts in a gathering courtroom assault by law firms that are aggressively recruiting clients through TV ads and the Internet.
While the link between ovarian cancer and talc is a matter of scientific dispute, a St. Louis jury Monday ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $55 million to a South Dakota survivor of the disease. In February, another St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to relatives of an Alabama woman who died of ovarian cancer.
They are among several hundred lawsuits claiming that regularly applying products like Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower to the genitals can cause the often-lethal cancer.
Both cases were handled by the Onder Law Firm, based in suburban St. Louis, one of the firms with ads running nationwide that urge cancer victims to come forward.
Attorney Jim Onder said Johnson & Johnson's marketing targeted overweight women, blacks and Hispanics, "knowing that those groups were most at-risk for talc-related ovarian cancer," he said. "It's horrible."
Onder said researchers began connecting talcum powder to ovarian cancer in the 1970s. Some case studies have indicated that women who regularly use talc on their genital area face up to a 40 percent higher risk of developing ovarian cancer.
But other studies have found no definitive link, the company said.
"Unfortunately, the jury's decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc," Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement.
Teri Brickey, forewoman of the jury that decided the latest case by a 9-3 vote, said she found the science presented by the plaintiffs more believable.
"I will never use talc again. It's definitely concerning to me," Brickey, 45, told The Associated Press. "I think it's a potential health hazard for some women -— a small percentage, but it is a percentage."
Talc is a naturally occurring mineral that is mined from the soil. It is widely used in cosmetics and other personal care items to absorb moisture, prevent caking and improve a product's feel.
Onder's firm alone has around 1,200 other talcum-related lawsuits pending — roughly 1,000 in St. Louis and 200 in New Jersey, Onder said. Legal experts not involved in the lawsuits said Johnson & Johnson will probably consider a settlement after two big losses.
"One blockbuster jury award can be written off as a fluke," said Nora Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford University law professor. "When you have two, it starts to look like a trend, and a very worrying one for Johnson & Johnson."
Goodrich said Johnson & Johnson is appealing both verdicts while "focusing on the next trial."
The medical community hasn't reached a consensus on talc as a possible carcinogen.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies genital use as "possibly carcinogenic." The National Toxicology Program, made up of parts of several different government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, has not fully reviewed talc.
Dr. Adetunji Toriola, a cancer epidemiologist at Washington University's Siteman Cancer Center in St. Louis, said case studies indicate that women who use talc increase their chances of developing ovarian cancer by 20 to 40 percent. Ovarian cancer is highly deadly because it is often diagnosed too late.
"It's probably just safer not to use talc for that reason," Toriola said.
He said talc might cause inflammation, which in turn is believed to increase the risk of ovarian cancer.
Dr. Joshua Muscat, a Penn State public health professor and paid Johnson & Johnson consultant who testified for J&J in the earlier trial, said Tuesday that scientific agencies including the National Cancer Institute, the FDA and the American Cancer Society have never found a link between talc and ovarian cancer.
"That finding was made only in the court of law and not among official scientific agencies," Muscat said. "In my opinion, it's settled in the scientific community."
The two St. Louis verdicts were the first talcum powder cases in which money was awarded. A federal jury in 2013 sided with another South Dakota woman, but it ordered no damages, a spokeswoman for Onder's firm said.
Johnson & Johnson has been targeted before by health and consumer groups over ingredients in its products, including Johnson's No More Tears baby shampoo.
After three years of petitions, bad publicity and a boycott threat, the company agreed in 2012 to eliminate 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde, both considered probable carcinogens, from all products by 2015.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
EMEA Coverage
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested