Preview Newsletter
J&J Talc 5/26
-
Here’s Why Johnson & Johnson’s Brand Reputation is Getting Slammed
May 25, 2016 | Money
By Martha C. White
It’s been a rough month for Johnson & Johnson: A Missouri court ordered the company to pay $55 million a few weeks ago, following a lawsuit brought by a woman who said the company’s talcum powder gave her ovarian cancer. -
Johnson & Johnson insists baby powder is safe, despite cancer lawsuits
May 26, 2016 | TreeHugger
By Katherine Martinko
...Johnson & Johnson has lost several of these lawsuits, and, in some cases, has been forced to make two enormous jury awards that add up to $127 million. -
Frivolous lawsuits drive up the cost for all of us
May 26, 2016 | Cape Cod Times
By Cynthia Stead
It was the talcum powder that finally sent me over the edge.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
-
Here’s Why Johnson & Johnson’s Brand Reputation is Getting Slammed
May 25, 2016 | Money
By Martha C. White
It’s been a rough month for Johnson & Johnson: A Missouri court ordered the company to pay $55 million a few weeks ago, following a lawsuit brought by a woman who said the company’s talcum powder gave her ovarian cancer. Then on Tuesday, California’s attorney generalsued the company for failure to disclose the risks of its pelvic mesh devices.
Now, a new survey shows that the bad press is affecting Americans’ views of the company: According to YouGov BrandIndex, consumer perception of J&J just hit a three-and-a-half year low. “Since February 8th, Johnson & Johnson’s perception levels have dropped by two-thirds,” it said, using a metric it calls a “Buzz Index” that measures positive and negative sentiment.
The Missouri verdict came on the heels of another, similar decision against the company: In February, it was ordered to pay $72 million to the family of a woman who used its talcum powder and died of ovarian cancer. Aside from the talcum powder-cancer news, YouGov also said J&J’s reputation was suffering because of defects in replacement hips, over which the company was ordered to pay $502 million by a federal court back in March.
There are indications that all this could be hurting J&J’s bottom line as well as its brand image: YouGov found that purchase intention — that is, whether a consumer who planned to buy a product in that category would purchase J&J or another brand’s product — fell six percentage points to 46% over the course of about a year.
http://time.com/money/4348268/heres-why-johnson-johnsons-brand-reputation-is-getting-slammed/
-
Johnson & Johnson insists baby powder is safe, despite cancer lawsuits
May 26, 2016 | TreeHugger
By Katherine Martinko
Baby powder looks deceptively innocent with its milky white container, pale blue lid, delicate scent, and silky soft feel. For decades it has been a bathroom cupboard staple, used on babies’ bottoms and by women to ‘freshen up’ between their legs, helping to absorb sweat. This seemingly innocuous powder, however, is now at the center of a serious controversy.
Thousands of women with ovarian cancer have filed lawsuits against baby powder manufacturer Johnson & Johnson, claiming that its main ingredient, talc, is carcinogenic and that prolonged use of baby powder caused their disease.
Johnson & Johnson has lost several of these lawsuits, and, in some cases, has been forced to make two enormous jury awards that add up to $127 million. The company plans to appeal these awards, as it continues to insist on the safety of its trademark product. It refuses to put a warning sign on products containing talc, despite the fact that its talc supplier has posted warning labels since 2006.
The company is on shaky ground, however, as a significant number of studies point to health risks associated with talc. The New York Times cites a report earlier this month that “among African-American women, genital use of powder is linked with a 44 percent increased risk for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer.”
Another study found that, “Compared with non-users, women who used talcum powder were at nearly twice the risk for having ovarian cancer, and those who used it regularly on their genitals and sanitary pads were at more than three times the relative risk.”
The New York Times also reported: “When researchers pooled the results of similar studies involving nearly 20,000 women, they found powder use was associated with a 24 percent increased risk for ovarian cancer, an uncommon disease but one that is often fatal.”
Talc is a clay mineral that is often mined close to asbestos. Despite precautions taken to separate the two, this is nearly impossible. Gillian Deacon writes in There’s Lead In Your Lipstick:
“The mineral talc tends to occur in rock mass formations that are intermingle with other magnesium silicate minerals, including the highly dangerous asbestos. Since it is virtually impossible to extract the talc rock from the asbestos during the mining process, the carcinogenic contaminant is almost invariably going to be carried over into any consumer product containing talc.”
The Environmental Working Group is not a fan either. Johnson & Johnson’s Original Baby Powder ranks 3 on its hazardous scale, which means it has ‘moderate risk’:
“Talc can be contaminated with asbestos fibers, posing risks for respiratory toxicity and cancer. Studies by the National Toxicology Panel demonstrated that cosmetic-grade talc free of asbestos is a form of magnesium silicate that also can be toxic and carcinogenic.”
All of this debate leads to the obvious question of why? Baby powder is a non-essential item. If there is any possibility of risk, avoiding it altogether would make the most sense, especially because there are safer alternatives with absorptive qualities, such as cornstarch and rice flour. It is yet another example of the cosmetics and skin care industries working hard to convince people that it is safe and acceptable to use potentially dangerous chemicals on our bodies when it should not be. It's better to be safe than sorry.
http://www.treehugger.com/health/johnson-johnson-insists-baby-powder-safe-despite-cancer-lawsuits.html
-
Frivolous lawsuits drive up the cost for all of us
May 26, 2016 | Cape Cod Times
By Cynthia Stead
It was the talcum powder that finally sent me over the edge.
I saw a television commercial soliciting names for a class-action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. Scientific studies have been mixed, and the FDA has rejected claims, but there is now a class action for women who have regularly used talcum powder in private areas. Since babies have had this applied to them in this way for decades, it would seem to apply to almost everybody, but the cancer lawsuit alleges that "dangerous talc particles can travel and become trapped for years, causing inflammation which can lead to the growth of ovarian cancer cells."
Everyone in America can now launch a lawsuit.
There are entire websites where you can browse to see if you can cash in. Did you shop at Home Depot? Buy a certain brand of dish washer? Call a hotel reservation system on a certain date? Fill out the claim form and get your check in the mail. No need to suffer any damage or problem; you’re entitled. If you bought a certain type of Chevrolet or Buick this past year, you could get as much as $1,500 in a settlement because the window stickers overstated fuel economy by a whopping one to two miles per gallon.
Why the legal nickel and diming? A lot of it has to do with the ability of lawyers to advertise these deals. When I was an insurance agent, some of the most heated discussions I had were with clients who had been in accidents that the carrier decided to settle. They were adamant that they had been in the right and wanted to fight the allegations made by the other driver. But the company weighed the costs and decided it would be cheaper to settle with the maker of the allegation than fight them, and the insured had no veto power or say-so about the company’s actions. It wasn’t about fact or liability so much as it was costs.
It is the same now that lawyers can advertise nationwide for class-action participants. When they threaten the manufacturer or company with the suit, the company usually gives them a settlement, which gets divided among the many participants, who get the checks for $16 as advertised on the website. It protects them from subsequent -- and possibly more serious -- allegations related to an error or incident.
The granddaddy of these kinds of claims is the Johns Manville asbestos trust. For nearly 30 years, this trust fund, created as a condition of allowing the company to declare bankruptcy because of its use of asbestos in manufacturing, has paid out about $17.5 billion over the last 28 years, with another $2.5 billion left in the trust today. One wrinkle is that asbestos-related claims continue to rise even though the diagnosis of mesothelioma, a severe disease triggered by asbestos which can take years to develop, is waning. Incidence of the disease dropped 22 percent between 1992 and 2009 even as new claims rose. Perhaps this is because some new claims are for the deceased. One woman filed a claim on behalf of her father 37 years after he died.
The lawsuits against medications and health care products have become a real factor in health care costs overall. The baby powder claims will be lumped in with this. I can hear the TV ads now: "You may qualify for a cash payment if you sign up now with our offices. Operators are standing by, and there is no cost to you unless you win." If the lawyers can provide the weight of enough names to scare the company into funding the settlement, clients will get a small cut after the lawyers have taken theirs. It’s a nice little product you have there. It’d be a shame if anything is wrong with it.
http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20160526/OPINION/160529734
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Add recipients
Suggested