Preview Newsletter
J&J Talc 5/16
-
A jury has found what science still has not: A link between baby powder and cancer
May 15, 2016 | PRI
By Adam Wernick
More than 1,200 women from across the country are suing pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant Johnson & Johnson for failing to warn consumers of the possible association between ovarian cancer and talc, the mineral used in the company’s iconic baby powder. -
Missouri courts need a higher standard: for justice and jobs
May 14, 2016 | Springfield News-Leader
By Lisa Rickard
There are places in this world where one wants, and expects, adherence to the highest standards. From hospitals to restaurant kitchens, from banks to our children’s schools — we have the highest expectations of these institutions. -
Will Johnson & Johnson remove talcum powder from stores after recent lawsuits?
May 13, 2016 | WIAT.com
By Sebastian Posey
Who’s responsible for giving women ovarian cancer from talcum powder? Two lawsuits say it’s pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson. -
Quickly: Indiana on a roll thanks to Daniels
May 13, 2016 | Chicago Tribune
...I'm wondering if I have reason to sue like those women who are suing Johnson & Johnson for allegedly covering up a cancer risk with talcum powder.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
-
A jury has found what science still has not: A link between baby powder and cancer
May 15, 2016 | PRI
By Adam Wernick
More than 1,200 women from across the country are suing pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant Johnson & Johnson for failing to warn consumers of the possible association between ovarian cancer and talc, the mineral used in the company’s iconic baby powder.
Now, two of those lawsuits have resulted in a finding of liability and an order for Johnson & Johnson to pay millions of dollars in monetary damages.
On May 1, a jury ordered the company to pay $55 million to a South Dakota woman who survived ovarian cancer. And in February, a jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million to the family of Jacqueline Fox, a daily user of its baby powder and talc-based Shower to Shower, who died from ovarian cancer last October. Johnson & Johnson says it plans to appeal both cases.
Ovarian cancer is not among the most common cancers for women, but it is among the most deadly, because it is often detected late. A woman’s lifetime risk of developing invasive ovarian cancer is about 1 in 75. Some studies have shown that long-term use of talc increases those odds to about 1 in 53. This is only in cases in which baby powder is used genitally, however.
The company argues that data from these studies reflect certain kinds of bias and that the statistical evidence is weak. Indeed, the scientific evidence of talc’s risk is inconsistent, even according to the American Cancer Society. On its website, the Ovarian Cancer National Alliancesays this:
“A number of past studies found an increased risk of ovarian cancer from talcum powder use, but these studies were considered inconclusive because of limitations in the way data were collected and analyzed. More recent studies, such as one using data from Harvard University’s Nurses’ Health Study in 2000, find no overall risk of ovarian cancer from talc use and only a modest increase in one type of the disease — invasive serous ovarian cancer.”
At the same time, notes Bloomberg reporter Susan Berfield, who has been following the legal battles, in 2005 the cancer agency of the World Health Organization found, after reviewing all of the studies, that there was a possible link. This finding is significant because it forced Johnson & Johnson's supplier to put a warning label on the talc that it sold to the company. But Johnson & Johnson felt the scientific evidence did not warrant passing on that warning to consumers.
“I think that was pretty persuasive for the jurors [in the Fox case], when they heard that,” Berfield says. “The jury was persuaded that Johnson & Johnson had been hiding something, that they knew of the risk and they were covering it up and that they were potentially endangering some of their most loyal customers.”
Johnson & Johnson was not required by law to place a warning label on their baby powder because the cosmetics industry is largely unregulated, Berfield explains.
“The Food and Drug Administration doesn't have authority over cosmetics,” she says. “That is a law that goes back to the 1930s. It’s also one that a lot of consumer groups, as well as members of Congress, are trying to update — to give the FDA more authority [and] more funding — and to require some additional safety precautions by the big cosmetics companies.”
In recent years, Johnson & Johnson has yielded to consumer concerns about chemicals, particularly in baby products, Berfield notes. For example, the company pledged to remove formaldehyde from baby shampoo and phthalates and parabens from other products.
“In those cases,” Berfield explains, “the company stated they believe those products are safe or they are using the chemicals in amounts that are safe, but they also understand that consumers have concerns and they want consumers to have peace of mind. So they agreed to remove them.”
This article is based on an interview that aired on PRI’s Living on Earth with Steve Curwood.
http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-05-15/jury-has-found-what-science-still-has-not-link-between-baby-powder-and-cancer
-
Missouri courts need a higher standard: for justice and jobs
May 14, 2016 | Springfield News-Leader
By Lisa Rickard
There are places in this world where one wants, and expects, adherence to the highest standards. From hospitals to restaurant kitchens, from banks to our children’s schools — we have the highest expectations of these institutions.
Let us add to that list: the courtroom. In the place where justice is supposed to be served, we set the bar high.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the standards for scientific studies, data and expert testimony allowed in a court trial, the Show Me State is one of the weakest in the nation.
But Missouri has a chance to change all of this. Last week, the legislature passed SB591, a measure that would require Missouri courts to adopt a higher expert evidence standard known as Daubert. The Daubert standard is the law in forty other states and U.S. federal courts. It measures scientific expertise on common-sense factors such as: Is the evidence being admitted in court relevant to the facts of the case at hand? Are the conclusions of a scientific study seen as reliable by scientists other than those who conducted the study? And were the study’s findings reached using broadly accepted scientific methods?
We’ve all seen the headlines of supposedly scientific studies that turned out to be less than accurate. The controversy over whether vaccinations cause autism in children, for example, started after a single research paper was published in a British medical journal. That research, later proven to be false, was paid for by plaintiffs’ lawyers wanting to sue vaccine makers.
Last week, a St. Louis jury heard a “star witness” testify on the link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer.
Only one problem: There has never been a scientifically proven link between talc and cancer — ovarian or otherwise. The American Cancer Society has looked but found no definitive link. Two years ago, the Food and Drug Administration denied a petition to puto a warning label on talcum powder because of a lack of evidence.
A connection between talc and ovarian cancer is, even in its most forward-leaning interpretation, merely a hypothesis.
But Missouri’s low standard allowed the expert to testify. The jury was persuaded. And health products company Johnson & Johnson paid $55 million to a woman claiming their product caused her ovarian cancer.
This verdict is the second against J & J this year over talc and cancer. And the star witness in both cases? The very same scientific “expert.”
But in the broader scientific community, there is doubt. And with doubt, there can be no sense of justice. And without a confidence in justice, Missouri is not a good place to do business.
This is why, in a national survey of some of the nation’s largest employers, Missouri’s judicial system ranked 42nd out of 50. Specifically on the issue of scientific and technical evidence, respondents ranked Missouri 43rd in the country.Get your full year subscription for as low as$19.99/YEARfor a LIMITED TIME onlyUNLOCK MY $19.99 OFFER
In this survey, employers said they are less likely to build facilities or create jobs in states with weaker lawsuit systems, like Missouri.
Missourians themselves get it. In a different survey — of Missouri voters — conducted by Public Opinion Strategies last fall, 79 percent said the number of lawsuits in Missouri is a serious problem; 66 percent said Missouri’s lawsuit system benefits plaintiffs’ lawyers most, while only six percent said the system helps victims.
Changing Missouri’s standard of scientific evidence isn’t just good for civil justice, but wrongful criminal convictions as well, where innocent people are put in jail based on shoddy evidence.
For Governor Nixon, improving Missouri’s courts should be a simple decision. Instead, he has said he will veto the bill. Why?
We know that the governor is under tremendous pressure from the Missouri plaintiffs’ bar. They’ve lobbied hard against this bill, because heightened expert standards mean some of their high-dollar cases that hinge on questionable evidence may no longer reap a huge payout.
Governor Nixon should set politics aside and do what is right for Missouri. For both justice and jobs, Missouri needs a higher expert evidence standard.
http://www.news-leader.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/05/14/missouri-courts-need-higher-standard-justice-and-jobs/84398702/
-
Will Johnson & Johnson remove talcum powder from stores after recent lawsuits?
May 13, 2016 | WIAT.com
By Sebastian Posey
Who’s responsible for giving women ovarian cancer from talcum powder? Two lawsuits say it’s pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson. Last week they were ordered to pay $55 million to a woman who claims its talcum powder caused her ovarian cancer.
There is a call for the company to pull the powder from store shelves. This morning on the CBS42 Morning News, the lead attorney in the case Ted Meadows is stopping by to talk about the rulings, and if the company should pull the product from stores.
http://wiat.com/2016/05/13/will-johnson-johnson-remove-talcum-powder-from-stores-after-recent-lawsuits/
-
Quickly: Indiana on a roll thanks to Daniels
May 13, 2016 | Chicago Tribune
What's Quickly? It's where readers sound off on the issues of the day. Have a quote, question or quip? Call Quickly at 312-222-2426 or email quickly@post-trib.com.
To whoever keeps attacking former Gov. Mitch Daniels: What planet are you on? For the last eight years things have been really good in Indiana. We were bankrupt and we went to a AAA bond rating. There was a lousy business climate and now we're in the top five. It's the biggest road-building program in the country. We went from the worst Bureau of Motor Vehicles to the best Bureau of Motor Vehicles. We have the lowest property taxes ever. This is Indiana on a roll.
Does anyone know what business will be in the new building across from Sherwin-Williams Paint Store building north of U.S. 30 in Dyer?
In response to the Quickly commenter's question about trains blocking tracks for two hours, I thought there was a law where you could only block a street for 10 to 15 minutes. Maybe that's something that someone that lives in Merrillville or the town itself should look into.
My sincere thanks to Tribune Publishing Co. for not selling out to Gannett Co. I grew up with the Gary Post-Tribune and even had my picture featured on the front page in my heyday. The newspaper has informed us and entertained us over the years. I will be 88 years old this month and look forward to my daily Post-Tribune. Thanks for not selling to Gannett.
I don't know what's worse, having an open border where terrorists and criminals can come across and shoot me or having someone driving down the road toward me, looking down, texting and hitting me head-on. I don't know what's worse.
I'm going to vote for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That way she can close our steel mills down here in Northwest Indiana because it's so unhealthy to breathe all the toxins. The heat and everything causes us to live hard lives just like the coal miners in West Virginia. My son-in-law and daughter won't have a job anymore and I won't have a job anymore. We won't have anything but we'll be healthy.
There's a book titled "The Ugly American" by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer. Well, there are a lot of ugly Americans in this country. They're those voting for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. They scare me.
It would be interesting to see what kind of opinions the people have for the use of drones on predators overseas or perhaps the use of drones inland to catch thieves on the local roads. Your comments would be appreciated.
I'm very concerned. I've used foot powder since my high school days and I'm almost 80 years old now. I'm wondering if I have reason to sue like those women who are suing Johnson & Johnson for allegedly covering up a cancer risk with talcum powder.
The annual National Association of Letter Carriers' Stamp Out Hunger Food Drive is May 14th. Please leave your nonperishable food items by your mailbox that Saturday or take them to your local post office. There are people in need so please give food and be generous. Thank you.
I read in the newspaper that a lot of people showed up at the Portage High School auditorium angry and protesting about this wheel tax that officials wanted. The Portage City Council went ahead and approved it. If all these other towns do the same thing, you had it in the newspaper. Get it and remember the names of all these councilmen that voted and said that they wanted the wheel tax. Keep the paper handy so when the next time comes for an election, don't vote them back in. Vote them out, period.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Add recipients
Suggested