Preview Newsletter
talc 5/5
-
J&J's Talcum Trial Losses Create Litigation Powder Keg
May 5, 2016 | Law 360
By Brandon Lowrey
Johnson & Johnson suffered serious defeats totaling $127 million in the first two trials in St. Louis over the alleged link between its talcum baby powder and ovarian cancer, and while J&J is appealing both verdicts, it still faces thousands of similar suits from consumers emboldened by headline-grabbing awards. -
Behind the $55 Million Verdict: Johnson & Johnson Knew About Talcum Powder Cancer Risks Since the 1970s
May 5, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Larry Bodine
Like the tobacco companies a generation ago, Johnson & Johnson and its cosmetics lobby have known about the link between its talcum powder and cancer for 40 years, distorted research about the talcum-cancer connection, and lied to the public about the dangers. -
Concerns about baby powder safety after large jury verdicts
May 5, 2016 | St. Louis Dispatch
By Blythe Bernhard
Can talcum powder cause ovarian cancer? Two St. Louis juries this year have said yes, awarding large verdicts in cases of women who developed cancer after using Johnson & Johnson products. But the scientific evidence is mixed. -
Can baby powder cause cancer?
May 5, 2016 | NBC WHTM
Concerned moms are wondering if baby powder can cause cancer following Johnson and Johnson shelling out millions in lawsuits. -
Jury Orders Johnson & Johnson To Pay $55M For Another Cancer Lawsuit
May 5, 2016 | Parent Herald
By Nens Mitchell
A St. Louis jury ordered healthcare and consumer products company Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to pay $55 million in damages to a woman who claimed that the talc contained in the company's baby powder was the reason why she had ovarian cancer. This is the second decision asking J&J to pay damages to because of its powder. -
Trouble for Johnson & Johnson After Second Big Loss in Talcum Powder and Ovarian Cancer Cases
May 4, 2016 | TruthDig
By Donald Kaufman
With rising concerns over talcum products and two recent losses at trial, Johnson & Johnson may be facing a tough road ahead as it denies any ovarian cancer risk by women using the powder for feminine hygiene. -
Johnson & Johnson In Trouble After Verdict Loss: Does Its Talcum Really Cause Cancer?
May 4, 2016 | Health Aim
Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $55 million to a woman who filed a lawsuit claiming that the company’s talcum powder is the reason behind her ovarian cancer. The company seems to be in much more trouble after the recent jury verdict. -
Johnson & Johnson Loses Lawsuit Over Baby Powder Causing Cancer, Is It Still Safe To Use?
May 5, 2016 | Malaysian Digest
Baby powder has been slathered on for generations – and one famous brand Johnson & Johnson, is no stranger when it comes to being the preferred brand for parents everywhere around the world. -
Watch | Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $55 million compensation
May 4, 2016 | Hindustan Times
Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $55 million (INR366.43crores) to a woman who claims its talcum powder caused her ovarian cancer. This is the second such judgment against the manufacturer in three months.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
APAC Coverage
Full Text of Stories Below
-
J&J's Talcum Trial Losses Create Litigation Powder Keg
May 5, 2016 | Law 360
By Brandon Lowrey
Johnson & Johnson suffered serious defeats totaling $127 million in the first two trials in St. Louis over the alleged link between its talcum baby powder and ovarian cancer, and while J&J is appealing both verdicts, it still faces thousands of similar suits from consumers emboldened by headline-grabbing awards.
The corporation has said it will appeal both verdicts — Monday's $55 million award and a $72 million award from February. Two more trials are slated for September in New Jersey and St. Louis and as of a month ago, upward of 1,200 similar lawsuits had been filed.
While the pair of big awards will certainly widen some eyes, their true significance has yet to be determined, experts said.
"It’s too early to make too much of these two verdicts," said veteran defense trial attorney Dane H. Butswinkas of Williams & Connolly LLP. "The damage awards could get reduced or reversed altogether. Or, the cases could settle before any of that happens."
In the meantime, though, courts in Missouri, Illinois, New Jersey and other states are seeing even more cases pour in as plaintiffs attorneys are emboldened. Jere Beasley of the talc plaintiffs' firm Beasley Allen estimated that the number of cases is now approaching 2,000. Beasley said his own firm is considering some 11,000 potential talc cases.
J&J declined to comment Tuesday, beyond its statement released Monday night promising an appeal and defending the safety of its product.
"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 Monday night. "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."
Beasley suggested that the two recent verdicts, if they stand up on appeal, could force the company to change its posture and "ultimately start settling the cases."
"The fact that sophisticated and educated jurors gave that range of damages should get the attention of the marketing people who run the show at Johnson & Johnson," Beasley said.
Both cases involve women's use of J&J's flagship product on their vaginal area. The plaintiffs argue that the talc traveled to their ovaries and accumulated there, causing cancer, and that J&J had long known about this danger but failed to warn consumers.
In the trial that ended Monday, Gloria Ristesund, 62, said she was diagnosed with endometrioid ovarian cancer, affecting the lining of her ovaries, in 2011. She was 57 at the time and survived.
J&J took aim at the science linking talc to ovarian cancer. Talc has been found on ovaries and tumors, but the company argued that doesn't necessarily prove causation. Furthermore, the company said that talc is so widely used, there's no certainty that J&J's baby powder was the source of the talc.
But the plaintiffs were armed with the company's damning internal documents showing it was aware of the potential risk for decades and repeatedly chose not to warn consumers. Among the internal documents was a fake Monopoly board game apparently making light of the potential link and the possibility of warning labels.
"They can say whatever they want to with their fancy experts when they come up here that testify in litigation all the time," plaintiffs attorney Allen R. Smith Jr. of the Talc Litigation Group told jurors during closing arguments last week. "This is what they said behind closed doors, when they're in the house and they don't think anybody's listening. A whole different song and dance."
At the end of a four-week trial, Ristesund's attorneys declined to suggest an award amount to jurors. They said that the punitive damages ought to be enough to change the company's behavior and "make them pay" for their conduct. Jurors deliberated for about a day before returning the $55 million verdict, which included $50 million in punitives.
In February, another St. Louis jury that saw similar evidence awarded $10 million in compensatory damages and $62 million in punitives to the estate of Jacqueline Fox, who died in October. The sum vastly exceeded the $5 million in compensatory and $10 million to $15 million in punitives that the plaintiffs in that case had sought, Beasley said.
Talc mining company Imrys Talc America Inc., which supplies the powder to J&J, escaped liability in both cases, though Beasley said he plans to continue including it in future suits because the company didn't begin officially warning J&J about the alleged cancer link until 2006.
The two large verdicts showed that the evidence, theories and arguments resonated well with jurors, emboldening plaintiffs' attorneys and showing that these cases are certainly viable.
But it also shows that J&J is going to put up a fight, Williams & Connolly's Butswinkas said.
"There are some important takeaways," Butswinkas said. "First, plaintiffs know they can convince a jury to find their way on causation, and second, so far, J&J has sent the message that they will try these cases. Win, lose or draw, that’s an important message. How this all plays out — whether J&J will alter its strategy and whether remaining cases will have similar results — remains to be seen. As they say, predictions are very difficult, especially when they are about the future."
Russell J. Jackson, an adjunct professor who teaches product liability courses at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, said that the publicity surrounding these awards will not only encourage plaintiffs' attorneys but also draw awareness to the alleged link between talc and ovarian cancer and encourage more women and their families to make the connection and seek representation.
This, paired with evidence that seems to persuade and anger jurors, means that J&J is facing a major threat, even if it develops a more successful trial strategy.
"It seems that even if J&J beefs up its Daubert defenses against general and specific causation, when it loses, those losses are going to be big," he said. "Thus, even if J&J improves its win-loss ratio, it is still facing huge liabilities. I expect we’ll see some individual and inventory settlements in this litigation designed to forestall additional trials while J&J tries to revise its trial strategy and develop a plan for global resolution."
For plaintiffs attorneys, this could be the start of a boom.
On Tuesday, Los Angeles plaintiffs' attorney James A. Morris Jr. of The Morris Law Firm said he's been following the St. Louis cases closely and is presently reviewing similar talc cases that could eventually evolve into lawsuits against J&J.
He said the talc litigation right now reminds him of the early days of asbestos litigation, when plaintiffs lawyers were intrigued by cases with apparently great potential but puzzled over what to make of it all.
In Morris' eyes, J&J seems to be staking out an unsustainable position by continuing to adamantly fight the lawsuits while continuing to sell the product without labels warning consumers against vaginal use. The end of this litigation, he said, is nowhere in sight.
"I suspect it would be interesting to have this conversation five years from now," he said. "There won't be a resolution anytime soon, but my best guess is that there will be plenty more verdicts between now and then."
Ristesund is represented by Allen R. Smith Jr. of the Talc Litigation Group and Ted G. Meadows of Beasley Allen Law Firm.
Fox’s estate is represented by Jere L. Beasley, Ted G. Meadows, David P. Dearing and Danielle Ward Mason of Beasley Allen Law Firm, Stephanie Rados, James G. Onder, Michael J. Quillin and W. Wylie Blair of Onder Shelton O’Leary & Peterson LLC, R. Allen Smith Jr. of The Smith Law Firm, and Timothy W. Porter, Patrick C. Malouf and John T. Givens of Porter & Malouf PA.
Johnson & Johnson is represented by Christy D. Jones of Butler Snow LLP.
Imrys Talc America Inc. is represented by Nancy M. Erfle of Gordon & Rees LLP.
The cases are Tiffany Hogans et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, case number 1422-CC09012, and Gloria Ristesund v. Johnson & Johnson, case number 1422-CC09012-01, in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri.http://www.law360.com/articles/792001/j-j-s-talcum-trial-losses-create-litigation-powder-keg
-
May 5, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Larry Bodine
Like the tobacco companies a generation ago, Johnson & Johnson and its cosmetics lobby have known about the link between its talcum powder and cancer for 40 years, distorted research about the talcum-cancer connection, and lied to the public about the dangers.
The big lie was exposed on Monday when, for the second time in three months, jurors blasted Johnson & Johnson with an 8-figure verdict in a trial charging that the company knew that its talc-based Baby Powder and Show to Shower Powder causes ovarian cancer.
Talc was found in the ovarian tissue after a hysterectomy of the plaintiff, Gloria Ristesund of Sioux Falls, SD, in the May 2 verdict in St. Louis. She was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 after using J&J’s talc-based feminine hygiene products for almost 40 years, and the jury awarded her $55 million.
Another jury in the same courthouse awarded $72 million on February 22 to the family of Jacqueline Fox of Birmingham, AL, who used Johnson’s baby powder for 35 years. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2013 and died last year.
1,200 Cancer Lawsuits
For decades, according to the plaintiffs, J&J and its lobby the Talc Interested Party Task Force (TIPTF) distorted scientific papers to prevent talc from being classified as a carcinogen.As a result, J&J is facing now 1,200 lawsuits in Missouri and New Jersey, charging it with fraud, negligence, conspiracy, and failing to warn consumers about the cancer risks.
Talc is a mineral mined in China that is made up magnesium and silicon. As a powder, it absorbs moisture well and helps reduce friction. The risk of ovarian cancer is one-third higher among women who regularly powdered their genitals with talc, according to a 2016 study in Epidemiology.
Researchers asked 2,041 women with ovarian cancer and 2,100 similar women without ovarian cancer about their talcum powder use. Those who said they routinely applied talc to their genital area, feminine products and underwear were at 33% higher risk of ovarian cancer, according to the study.
Research author Dr. Cramer has unsuccessfully called for warning labels on talcum powder. Cramer, who heads the Obstetrics and Gynecology Epidemiology Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, first reported a link between genital talc and ovarian cancer in 1982.
The Talc-Cancer Coverup
One juror in the $55 million case, Jerome Kendrick, told a St. Louis newspaper that the company’s internal memos “pretty much sealed my opinion.” He said, “They tried to cover up and influence the boards that regulate cosmetics.” He added, “They could have at least put a warning label on the box but they didn’t. They did nothing.”
Numerous research studies have shown the connection between talcum powder and ovarian cancer:
In 1971 study conducted conducted by Dr. W.J. Henderson and others in Cardiff, Wales, suggested an aassociation between talc and ovarian cancer.In 1982, the first epidemiologic study was performed on talc powder use in the female genital area. Conducted by Dr. Daniel Cramer and others, the study found a 92% increased risk in ovarian cancer with women who reported genital talc use.Since then, there have been approximately 22 additional epidemiologic studies providing data regarding the association of talc and ovarian cancer. Nearly all of these studies have reported an elevated risk for ovarian cancer associated with genital talc use in women.In 1993, the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a study on the toxicity of non-asbestiform talc and found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity. Talc was found to be a carcinogen, with or without the presence of asbestos-like fibers.
The conspiracy to stop a warning
In response to the federal NTP study, the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association formed the Talc Interested Party Task Force (TIPTF). Johnson & Johnson was a member of the trade lobby and was the primary actor and contributors of TIPTF. The stated purpose of TIPTF was to pool financial resources of these companies in an effort to collectively defend talc use and to prevent regulation of any type over this industry.
According to the womens’ lawsuit, TIPTF hired scientists to perform biased research regarding the safety of talc. Members of TIPTF edited scientific reports of the scientists it hired prior the submission of these scientific reports to governmental agencies. Members of TIPTF released false information about the safety of talc to consumers, and used political and economic influence on regulatory bodies throughout the 1990s.
In 2005 TIPTF agreed to edit and delete portions of scientific papers being submitted on their behalf to the NTP, and threatened to sue the NTP in an attempt to prevent talc from being classified as a carcinogen.
Finally in 2006, the Canadian government under The Hazardous Products Act and associated Controlled Products Regulations classified talc as a “D2A,” “very toxic,” “cancer causing” substance under its Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System. Asbestos is also classified as “D2A”.
In the same year, Johnson & Johnson’s talc supplier — Imerys Talc — began placing warning sheets on the talc it sold to Johnson & Johnson. These sheets not only provided the warning information from the International Association for the Research of Cancer (part of the World Health Organization) but also included warning information about the Canadian Government’s “cancer causing” classification.
As of this day, Johnson & Johnson still does not pass this warning on to consumers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-bodine/behind-the-55-million-ver_b_9833366.html
-
Concerns about baby powder safety after large jury verdicts
May 5, 2016 | St. Louis Dispatch
By Blythe Bernhard
Can talcum powder cause ovarian cancer? Two St. Louis juries this year have said yes, awarding large verdicts in cases of women who developed cancer after using Johnson & Johnson products. But the scientific evidence is mixed.
Inflammation is thought to increase the risk of ovarian cancer. And talc causes swelling when applied to the genital area. Talc particles also can migrate to a woman’s ovaries and fallopian tubes, which may cause further inflammation, said Dr. Adetunji Toriola, a cancer researcher at Washington University.
Some epidemiological studies that rely on women’s memories to track their usage of talc products have shown an increase in the risk of cancer. Other studies that follow women’s health habits over time — including a paper published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2014 — have not shown a link.
The risk, if any, is small. If the case studies are correct, there could be four extra ovarian cancer cases per 100,000 women who use talc products, Toriola said. But when there are alternatives such as cornstarch-based powders, “it’s probably safer and better to avoid anything that could potentially increase the risk of cancer,” he said.
Johnson & Johnson is accused by more than 1,200 plaintiffs in state and federal courts of ignoring studies linking its Shower-to-Shower product and Johnson’s Baby Powder to ovarian cancer. A St. Louis jury on Monday ordered the company to pay $55 millionto a survivor of the disease in South Dakota. In February, another local jury awarded $72 million to relatives of an Alabama woman who died of ovarian cancer.
Both cases were handled by the Onder Law Firm of Webster Groves, which has advertised nationwide for ovarian cancer patients who suspect baby powder may be linked to their disease.
Another trial with lead plaintiff Tenesha Farrar of St. Louis is expected to start later this year, although legal experts say Johnson & Johnson might move toward settling future cases. Farrar’s attorney, Eric Holland of the Holland Law Firm of St. Louis, said internal company memos show the company knew about the ovarian cancer risk.
Johnson & Johnson denies any link between talc and ovarian cancer and will appeal both verdicts, according to a spokeswoman.
“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,” said Carol Goodrich, in a statement. “Johnson & Johnson has always taken questions about the safety of our products extremely seriously.”
For decades, pediatricians have advised against using baby powder to treat diaper rash, mostly because of the risk of inhalation and lung irritation.
But the application of baby powder to underwear, menstrual pads and genitals of teenagers and women has long been a hygiene habit. A federal health survey found that more than half of American women have used baby powder in their genital area at one time.
The practice is thought to be even more popular among African-American and Hispanic women. Lawyers say the company knew of this preference among certain women and targeted its marketing accordingly. Many of the plaintiffs, including Farrar, are black.
The Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance said the verdicts will not change the information they provide to women about talcum powder.
“In highly publicized cases like these, we must be careful as a women’s health organization to let science guide our reactions. The fact remains that the science is inconclusive about increased risk of ovarian cancer to women using talcum powder,” said Audra Moran, the group’s president and CEO, in a statement.
Talcum powder products contain the mineral talc that can absorb moisture and prevent chafing and rash. It is used in eye shadow, blush and some chewing gums as well as baby powder. Some talc naturally contains asbestos, which is known to cause lung cancer. Asbestos has been removed from household talcum products since the 1970s.
The American Cancer Society states research into talc and ovarian cancer is ongoing, and “until more information is available, people concerned about using talcum powder may want to avoid or limit their use of consumer products that contain it.”
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies the use of baby powder with talc on or near the genitals as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
Talc has been found in ovarian cancer tumors, according to pathology reports, but most biopsies do not test for the mineral. And the presence of talc does not necessarily indicate it caused the cancer. As with many areas of cancer research, the questions on its causes are more plentiful than answers.
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/health/concerns-about-baby-powder-safety-after-large-jury-verdicts/article_048b9b7a-62eb-5e52-a727-e087f0dfa937.html
-
May 5, 2016 | NBC WHTM
Concerned moms are wondering if baby powder can cause cancer following Johnson and Johnson shelling out millions in lawsuits.
“Better for baby — Better for you” was the longtime slogan of Johnson and Johnson’s Baby Powder, which was developed in 1893. Company research showed its popularity grew up through the 1970s, in which 70 percent of adults used the product.
In the same decade, health officials discovered that unprocessed talcum powder contains asbestos, which can be linked to cancer when inhaled over a long period of time according to the American Cancer Society [ACS]. J&J subsequently removed asbestos from its products after consumer backlash.
On Tuesday, Johnson and Johnson was ordered by a Missouri jury to pay $55 million to a woman who claims the powder caused her to develop ovarian cancer. In February, J&J was ordered to pay $72 million to an Alabama family after a woman died from a similar claim.
The company faces another 1,200 similar complaint cases; 1,000 in Missouri and 200 in New Jersey.
Many women have called with concerns on baby powder and its safety.
Yes, the American Cancer Society saw some links between asbestos talcum powder and lung cancer. But, there was little evidence to suggest consumer-grade talcum powder is linked to as such.
Most hospitals have banned baby powder altogether due to its potentially slippery floor byproduct and breathing in particles.
The Food and Drug Administration said it has found no links to asbestos in any of J&J’s current products.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, with the World Health Organization, said longtime usage of talc on women’s genitals is “possibly carcinogenic”, given that it can travel up to the ovaries and cause inflammation over an extended period of time.
The National Toxicology Program in the United States has not done extensive enough research to determine if talc powder can be considered a carcinogen.
J&J’s ‘Shower to Shower’ body powder, the product named in the two losing lawsuits contains both talc and cornstarch.
Some J&J powder products have moved to “pure cornstarch”, which has no current link to cancer according to the ACS. A consumer must look at the label.
There are several USDA-approved organic products that claim to be safer alternatives to talc by using tapioca starch or kaolin clay, both of which have no current links to cancer-causing properties.
-
Jury Orders Johnson & Johnson To Pay $55M For Another Cancer Lawsuit
May 5, 2016 | Parent Herald
By Nens Mitchell
A St. Louis jury ordered healthcare and consumer products company Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to pay $55 million in damages to a woman who claimed that the talc contained in the company's baby powder was the reason why she had ovarian cancer. This is the second decision asking J&J to pay damages to because of its powder.
According to USA Today, Gloria Ristesund will receive $50 million in punitive damages from the company. Of course, this is in addition to another $5 million she will receive for damages from Johnson & Johnson.
The J&J customer said she used the company's baby powder and other feminine products prior to being diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Her disease is now in remission. Ristesund is just one of the many women who has filed legal charges against the company who all claimed that they were not properly informed of the dangers of talc.
Reuters noted that this recent verdict followed a similar decision from the same court last February. J&J was asked to pay $72 million to the family of a woman who died of ovarian cancer after years of using the company's feminine hygiene products.
In a statement, J&J spokesperson Carol Goodrich said that the court decisions contradict three decades of research which declares talc safe to use for cosmetic and hygienic purposes. She said that the company will appeal the ruling and stand by the safety of its products.
This claim was supported by Winthrop-University Hospital Gynecologic Oncology and Director of Clinical Cancer Services chief Eva Chalas who told USA Today that it is hard to establish a link between talc and ovarian cancer.
"The information on talc powder came out many years ago when they saw talc incorporated in the tissue of women with ovarian cancer," Chalas explained. She noted that this led doctors to tell mothers to avoid using talcum powder for their babies and feminine hygiene.
http://www.parentherald.com/articles/40992/20160504/jury-orders-johnson-johnson-to-pay-55m-for-another-cancer-lawsuit.htm
-
Trouble for Johnson & Johnson After Second Big Loss in Talcum Powder and Ovarian Cancer Cases
May 4, 2016 | TruthDig
By Donald Kaufman
With rising concerns over talcum products and two recent losses at trial, Johnson & Johnson may be facing a tough road ahead as it denies any ovarian cancer risk by women using the powder for feminine hygiene.
A Missouri court ordered the company this week to pay $55 million to a woman who claimed that its talcum powder caused her to develop ovarian cancer. This followed a verdict in February to pay $72 million to the family of a woman who died of ovarian cancer.
The company is facing 1,200 lawsuits with similar claims but denies that the use of its talcum powder on the genital area increases the risk of ovarian cancer. The company has already appealed the February verdict and plans to appeal the latest.
BBC News reports:
Is talc safe?
There have been concerns for years that using talcum powder, particularly on the genitals, may increase the risk of ovarian cancer.
But the evidence is not conclusive. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies talc used on the genitals as “possibly carcinogenic” because of the mixed evidence.
Why is there any debate?
The mineral talc in its natural form does contain asbestos and does cause cancer. However, asbestos-free talc has been used in baby powder and other cosmetics since the 1970s. But the studies on asbestos-free talc give contradictory results.
It has been linked to a cancer risk in some studies, but there are concerns that the research may be biased as the studies often rely on people remembering how much talc they used years ago. Other studies have argued there is no link at all and there is no link between talc in contraceptives such as diaphragms and condoms (which would be close to the ovaries) and cancer.
Also, there does not seem to be a “dose-response” for talc, unlike with known carcinogens like tobacco where the more you smoke, the greater the risk of lung cancer.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/trouble_for_johnson_johnson_after_second_big_loss_in_talcum_powder_ovarian_
-
Johnson & Johnson In Trouble After Verdict Loss: Does Its Talcum Really Cause Cancer?
May 4, 2016 | Health Aim
Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $55 million to a woman who filed a lawsuit claiming that the company’s talcum powder is the reason behind her ovarian cancer. The company seems to be in much more trouble after the recent jury verdict.
Till now, two jury verdicts have been given against Johnson & Johnson, leading to a total monetary award of $127 million to the two women who believe that their ovarian cancer has resulted because of company’s popular baby talc.
The decision against the company has raised speculations that the talc might indeed be the cause behind some cases of ovarian cancer. However, no research so far has proved it straight away.
A number of studies conducted by the scientists have given mixed results so far. The studies confirming the link between the use of baby talc and the occurrence of ovarian cancer, on the other hand, have reported only a slight increase in the risk of the disease.Like us on Facebook
“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,” a Johnson & Johnson’s representative said in a statement, following the recent jury verdict announced on Monday.
The lawyer who represents a few plaintiffs, Mark Lanier, claims that some of the company’s documents dating back to 1970s reveal that the company itself was concerned over an association between the use of talc and ovarian cancer.
“If J&J believed it might cause cancer, then J&J had an absolute moral obligation to warn people,” said Lanier, reports Wall Street Journal.
Johnson & Johnson’s, on the other hand, claims that several scientific studies have proved that its talc is safe for use as a cosmetic product. In addition, the labeling provided on the powder is appropriate too.
http://www.healthaim.com/johnson-johnson-trouble-verdict-loss-talcum-really-cause-cancer/54298#ixzz47lcPIxVz
-
Johnson & Johnson Loses Lawsuit Over Baby Powder Causing Cancer, Is It Still Safe To Use?
May 5, 2016 | Malaysian Digest
Baby powder has been slathered on for generations – and one famous brand Johnson & Johnson, is no stranger when it comes to being the preferred brand for parents everywhere around the world.
Gloria Ristesund, has used Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder on her genitals for more than 35 years before being diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2011. She filed for a lawsuit which the company recently lost and was ordered to pay $55 million in damages.
Although Johnson & Johnson has issued a statement that their products are safe to use, this is the company’s second court defeat since February over claims its talcum powder caused cancer, and they are fighting against 1,200 lawsuits that allege they knew about cancer risks but failed to warn consumers.
Talc, the substance which arguably causes cancer, is found in several common household products. It's an additive in some cosmetics such as blush, face powder, eye shadow and body powders, including products marketed specifically for use on babies.
The Food and Drug Administration says talc in this form is "generally recognised as safe when used ... in accordance with good manufacturing practice" but the American Academy of Pediatrics has advised against using baby powder containing talc due to aspiration risks.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer also classifies perineal use of talc-containing products as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."
So, can the product that people have considered safe to put on their babies during diaper change really cause cancer?
According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), although there's not very much evidence to show that talc causes cancer, some talc in its natural form contains asbestos, which is known to cause cancers in and around the lungs when inhaled.
The International Chemical Safety Card for talc also reads: "This substance may have effects on the lungs, resulting in talc pneumoconiosis."
However, "No increased risk of lung cancer has been reported with the use of cosmetic talcum powder," the ACS says.
The ACS does acknowledge that it "has been suggested" that talc, in body powder or baby powder, could cause ovarian cancer if the powder comes in direct contact with the genital area.
"For any individual woman, if there is an increased risk, the overall increase is likely to be very small. Still, talc is widely used in many products, so it is important to determine if the increased risk is real. Research in this area still continues," as stated in the ACS Talc Fact Sheet.
Doctors have also 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.
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. In his study, Cramer found a 33% higher risk overall, showing a strong link between talc use and ovarian cancer.
Although the company is appealing against the verdict, based on Johnson's website, its baby powder still contains talc, but the company also offers a version made with cornstarch.
"There is no evidence at this time linking cornstarch powders with any form of cancer," the ACS says.
Guess it’s time for consumers to take a smarter approach and acknowledge these worrisome research studies, weigh the warnings, review labels and consult doctors and decide for themselves whether and how to use the products.
-
Watch | Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $55 million compensation
May 4, 2016 | Hindustan Times
Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $55 million (INR366.43crores) to a woman who claims its talcum powder caused her ovarian cancer. This is the second such judgment against the manufacturer in three months. The ruling comes amid ongoing debate about the link between the bathroom staple and deadly disease that is often detected too late for treatment. Some studies suggest that women who regularly use talc face up to 40 percent higher risk of developing ovarian cancer.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/videos/world/watch-johnson-johnson-ordered-to-pay-55-million-compensation/video-s99ov5qKcKjd9Xz6Y2yhkM.html
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
APAC Coverage
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested