Preview Newsletter
Talc 06/06
-
Why You Shouldn’t Put Baby Powder Down There
Jun 4, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Ronnie Cohen
(Reuters Health) - African-American women who reported regular use of body powder were at greater risk for ovarian cancer compared to their peers who didn’t use talc, a new study shows. -
J&J Supplants Apple as Barron’s Most Respected Company
Jun 4, 2016 | Barron's
By Vito J. Racanelli
Baby powder and band-aids beat iPhones this year in the eyes of professional investors. In other words, Johnson & Johnson, renowned for household brands as well as prescription drugs and medical devices, knocked Apple from its perch atop Barron’s annual ranking of the world’s most respected companies. -
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) Extending Consumer Segment: Smart Strategy?
Jun 3, 2016 | BidnessEtc
By Nida Ahmad
J&J seems to have made a smart decision by acquiring privately held Vogue International LLC, a maker of hair care and other personal care products -
Commentary: A plaintiff's witness in the baby powder case
Jun 3, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Roberta B. Ness
"What you don't know won't hurt you" may not work when it comes to healthy aging. You can't avert a risk you don't know about. Today I tell a story about baby powder, made by one of America's most trusted companies. -
Using Baby Powder Could Cause Ovarian Cancer, Lawsuits Allege
Jun 3, 2016 | Broadly
By Molly Oswaks
Thousands of women have filed class-action lawsuits claiming Johnson & Johnson failed to notify them that their talc-containing products could put them at risk of cancer.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
-
Why You Shouldn’t Put Baby Powder Down There
Jun 4, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Ronnie Cohen
n" style="box-sizing: inherit; transform: translate3d(0px, 0px, 0px);">(Reuters Health) - African-American women who reported regular use of body powder were at greater risk for ovarian cancer compared to their peers who didn’t use talc, a new study shows.
Regular use of powder was associated with ovarian cancer regardless of where the women used it, the researchers report. Users of genital powder had more than a 40 percent increased risk of cancer, while those who used only non-genital powder had an increased risk of more than 30 percent.
“African-American women have been targeted for use of body powder, and they use it more commonly,” principal investigator Joellen Schildkraut told Reuters Health in a telephone interview. “I’ve concluded – why use it?”
Schildkraut, an epidemiologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, had been skeptical of a long-debated connection between genital talc and the deadly gynecologic cancer. But her new study, in concert with other recent research, convinced her to advise women to avoid using talcum powder.
“I was a cynic until these recent studies came out. As you look across all these studies, I would say, why use it? It’s an avoidable risk for ovarian cancer,” she said.
Schildkraut’s team interviewed 584 black women with ovarian cancer and 745 black women without the disease from the southern, eastern and midwestern U.S.
Nearly 63 percent of the women with ovarian cancer and nearly 53 percent of the healthy controls dusted themselves with powder, the researchers report in Cancer Epidemiology.
Dr. Nicolas Wentzensen, head of clinical epidemiology for the National Cancer Institute, noted that African-American women are underrepresented in many epidemiological studies.
He told Reuters Health by email that Schildkraut’s research was well-conducted and confirms previous studies describing an increased risk of ovarian cancer from talc use.
Wentzensen noted that the current study found stronger associations between talc use and ovarian cancer than previous research. A December paper in the journal Epidemiology, for example, reported a 33 percent higher risk of ovarian cancer in women who said they routinely applied talc to their crotches, sanitary napkins, tampon and underwear.
In the past, African-American women have reported significantly higher use of so-called feminine hygiene products, including genital powder. A 2015 case-control study in Los Angeles found that 44 percent of African-American women reported using talcum powder, compared to 30 percent of white women and 29 percent of Hispanic women.
In the 1990s, Johnson and Johnson outlined a plan to hike flagging sales of its powder “by targeting” black and Hispanic women, according to a company memorandum made public in recent lawsuits leading to multimillion-dollar verdicts against the powder manufacturer.
Prospective studies, which follow participants over time to see if they develop a disease, are generally considered more reliable than studies that look backward. Two prospective studies have failed to link talc and ovarian cancer. But Schildkraut believes the prospective studies included too few talc users and too few ovarian cancer cases to uncover a relationship.
Because African-American women tend to use talc more, Schildkraut believes that studying a sizable group of black women, like she did, makes the study more powerful and might explain the stronger association.
Wentzensen said recall bias, particularly following publicity about outsized jury verdicts in talc-ovarian cancer cases, might explain the stronger association in the new study. Schildkraut considered recall bias but said she tends to believe women were more likely to correctly remember their talc usage.
An estimated 20,000 American women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer and about 14,500 die from it annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Dr. Daniel W. 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. Since then, he’s been calling for warning labels.
In a recent editorial in Gynecologic Oncology, cancer genetics expert Dr. Steven Narod of Women’s College Research Institute in Toronto wrote, “In the interests of public health, I believe we should caution women against using genital talcum powder.”
Narod, who was not involved in Schildkraut’s study, wrote that it’s “disingenuous to state that there is no evidence that talc is associated with ovarian cancer.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/talc-linked-to-ovarian-cancer-risk-in-african-american-women_us_5751a1dbe4b0ed593f142915
-
J&J Supplants Apple as Barron’s Most Respected Company
Jun 4, 2016 | Barron's
By Vito J. Racanelli
Baby powder and band-aids beat iPhones this year in the eyes of professional investors. In other words, Johnson & Johnson, renowned for household brands as well as prescription drugs and medical devices, knocked Apple from its perch atop Barron’s annual ranking of the world’s most respected companies.
J&J (ticker: JNJ) jumped to No. 1 from No. 6 in 2015. Apple (AAPL), crowned the winner last year by U.S. money managers, slipped to No. 3.
Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A), a perennial top-five finisher, stood at No. 2, up from third place in 2015. Online retailer Amazon.com (AMZN) advanced to No. 4 from No. 17, having finally proved it can generate cash after spending many years investing in its businesses. Rounding out this year’s top five: Nike (NKE), the athletic footwear and apparel giant, which sprinted up from ninth place in 2015.
J&J jumped to No. 1 from No. 6 in 2015. Getty Images
J&J has ranked at or near the top of the list in 10 of the 12 surveys we’ve run. The company’s deft handling of a recall of its Tylenol pain reliever after a cyanide-tampering scare still inspires, even though the episode occurred more than 30 years ago. Yet, as much as J&J deserves kudos for far more recent achievements, its mean respect score rose only slightly this year, to 3.83 from 3.67 (more on the survey’s methodology in a moment).
J&J owes its No. 1 spot both to professional investors’ growing respect for the New Brunswick, N.J.–based company, and diminished admiration for some of last year’s top performers. Walt Disney (DIS) clocked in at No. 6 this year, down from No. 2. Alphabet (GOOGL), Google’s corporate parent, fell to No. 9 from No. 5. Visa (V) dropped to No. 22 from fourth place.
Shifts in corporate fundamentals explain many changes in the ranking, but not all. Apple’s decline, albeit modest, occurred as its stock dropped about 25%, due to growing worries about the tech giant’s long-term ability to keep creating innovative, must-have products.
A volatile market and industry trends can also influence investors’ perceptions. TakeWells Fargo (WFC), last year’s seventh-place finisher, which plunged to No. 60 this year, a victim chiefly of the market’s persistently bearish view of banks. That might change if interest rates start to rise, allowing banks to earn higher net-interest margins. This year, however, the banks that qualified for inclusion in the survey all ranked below No. 40.
While there is relative stability from year to year among the companies in the top 10, there are notable shifts in reputation and ranking throughout the list. In the plus column,McDonald’s (MCD) is showing operating improvement after years of subpar performance, and investors have recognized as much. The company ranks No. 49 this year, up from No. 72 in 2015. Microsoft (MSFT), another turnaround story, rose to No. 14 from No. 27.
Investors say they base their respect for companies, at least in part, on their experience as consumers. It is little wonder, then, that four of this year’s five winners sell hugely popular products or services; the fifth, Berkshire Hathaway, is run by Warren Buffett, one of the world’s most revered investors.
Enlarge Image
BARRON’S HAS ASKED money managers since 2005 to share their views of the world’s largest publicly traded companies, as measured by total market capitalization. Over time, high respect scores both reflect and help lead to stock-market outperformance. Companies with low respect scores—this year’s group includes Chinese and Japanese outfits, tobacco sellers, and telecom and energy names—often are ripe for improvement.
S&P Dow Jones Indices provided the list of companies eligible for inclusion in the survey, based on total market cap as of April 20, 2016. Reckitt Benckiser (RB.UK), the British seller of over-the-counter health and hygiene products, is the smallest company on this year’s roster, with a stock-market value on that date of $73.5 billion. That’s down from last year’s cutoff point of $80 billion. The survey was conducted with the help of Beta Research in Syosset, N.Y., and drew responses from 90 professional investors.
As in years past, respondents selected one of four choices that best reflected their view of each company: Highly Respect, Respect, Respect Somewhat, or Don’t Respect. A point value was assigned to each response, with the highest accorded to Highly Respect. A Don’t Respect rating merited a deduction. A mean score was tabulated for each company; in the case of ties, the higher ranking went to the company with the most Highly Respect votes.
The finish between J&J and Berkshire is even tighter than it looks. Berkshire obtained the most Highly Respect marks in the survey: 53. However, it also received the most Don’t Respect checks among the top 10, at five. J&J’s victory was partly due to the fact that it received no Don’t Respect scores—a rare feat—and therefore had no points subtracted. Had Berkshire received one less Don’t Respect black mark, it would have edged out J&J this year.
There was no trend among industry sectors this year, unlike in 2015, when health-care companies, including biotechnology and drug concerns, medical-device makers, and pharmacy-benefit managers occupied 13 of the top 30 positions. Health-care stocks are down 8% as a group since last July, after many years of leading the market. That decline, which dented investors’ wallets, is likely to have had a negative impact on respect scores, too.
SURVEY RESPONDENTS were also asked which of several factors is most important to them in determining respect for companies. (See table, below.) In addition, they were invited to contribute comments on individual companies.
Nearly one-third of respondents indicated that strong management is key to winning their admiration. “People make things happen, not corporations,” says Peter Scholla, who runs Global Investment Adviser, in North Palm Beach, Fla. “IBM registered 7,355 patents last year. Where are they [management] turning this into a profit?”
As the comment suggests, he doesn’t think much of the Big Blue executive team.
Strong management covers a lot of ground, and can be thought to include sound business strategy, notes Adrian Day, president of Adrian Day Asset Management in Annapolis, Md.
A smaller, but still significant percentage of respondents called ethical business practices the most critical factor in soliciting respect. Lloyd Khaner, president of Khaner Capital Management, says he respects a company that “treats customers with integrity and takes care of its employees as well as shareholders.”
Charles Lieberman, chief investment officer of Advisors Capital Management, in Ridgewood, N.J., says respect for a corporation, in his mind, is derived from how its managers treat shareholders. Full stop. Is the company growing profits—and delivering them to shareholders?
J&J ISN’T PERFECT. In 2012 the company ranked No. 32 in our survey, after it had been hit by patent-infringement lawsuits, product recalls, and manufacturing troubles. Most of that is in the past now, although the company reportedly faces more than 1,000 lawsuits alleging that its talcum-powder products can cause cancer. Still, J&J continues to grow organically and through acquisitions. It has proved a dependable provider of rising profits and dividends, and a good steward of shareholder capital.
J&J consistently innovates and adds value, says John Boland, a principal at Maple Capital Management, in Montpelier, Vt. “It is focused on cash flow and understands it is the shareholders’ cash that is being generated,” he says.
David Hartzell, a portfolio manager at Cornell Capital Management, in upstate New York, agrees. “It has a great management and product mix, and always addresses its problems and resolves them,” he says. “You have to be forthright and willing to take products off the shelf, and J&J is.”
Hartzell says he has been buying J&J for clients since 1990.
Despite legal setbacks and some softness in results in its medical-devices unit, J&J raised its 2016 guidance for revenue and earnings per share, and lifted its dividend by 7%, the 54th consecutive annual increase. The stock yields 2.84%. Since the publication of our previous survey, J&J’s shares are up 13%, while the market is down 2%.
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY has finished in the top five in 10 of the past 11 years—a feat no other company can match. The one year it missed the cut, it was ranked a none-too-shabby No. 15. The company has prospered over the decades, and Buffett, its chairman and CEO, has been recognized for having made some of the savviest investments in history.
This year, as in the past, admirers laud Berkshire’s business model, long-term orientation, and capital allocation. Yet Berkshire’s strong respect score derives in large part from Buffett, who has gained rock-star status among investors and others. A common remark from respondents is that he strikes the right balance between ethics, profits, and common-sense investing.
For all his success, however, Buffett has also come under criticism, particularly now that he has become more vocal about politics, taxes, and income inequality. For that reason, some investors view him less favorably than in the past, and enough of them voted Don’t Respect to cost Berkshire first place.
“One can’t criticize Berkshire’s performance,” says Day, “But Buffett’s folksy image is overdone.”
When Buffett complains that the rich don’t pay enough taxes in the U.S., he could always send a donation to the government, Day says. “There’s nothing wrong with minimizing one’s taxes,” he adds.
AND WHAT OF APPLE? Activist investor Carl Icahn sold his big stake earlier this year. Yet Berkshire thought well enough of Apple to purchase more than $1 billion of stock in the first quarter. Berkshire owns stakes in a number of companies on our list: Wells Fargo;Coca-Cola (KO), which finished at No. 34, up from No. 38; and IBM (IBM), at No. 63, down from No. 59.
Although Apple fell only two spots, the drop is indicative of rising investor skepticism about its ability to keep innovating successfully. Last year, 68% of respondents gave the iPhone maker a Highly Respect rating, but that has fallen to 52%. For years, investors worshipped Apple’s new products and technological vision. But in the latest survey, some said the Cupertino, Calif.–based creator of some of the world’s most popular gadgets can’t figure out how to grow, or is out of touch with the market. Ouch.
Says Craig Giventer, a managing director at Financial Partners Capital Management in New York, “Apple CEO Tim Cook deserves a lot of respect for steering a great company, post-Steve Jobs [Apple’s co-founder]. That said, all products, technology products especially, have their life cycles, and the iPhone isn’t immune.”
Cornell’s Hartzell was tougher: “You know what happens to a company with one big product? Eventually, it becomes a commodity. What is Apple’s next big product? It’s not the Apple Watch.”
THE KIND OF RAVE REVIEWS Apple used to get now go to Amazon.com, our fourth-place finisher. In the first quarter, the Seattle-based online seller of just about everything produced its fourth straight profitable quarter, and strongest ever, after years of spending billions on infrastructure and building itself into a behemoth. This year, in particular, the poor results at many department stores and apparel retailers demonstrate Amazon.com’s growing power. According to a recent Cowen & Co. report, Amazon.com will be the nation’s largest apparel retailer in 2017, surpassing Macy’s (M).
“Amazon has taken a lot of flak for failing to produce profits [in the past]. It looks long-term, invests for growth, and does it smartly,” says Lieberman, of Advisors Capital.
More From Barron’s
Stocks Are Undervalued: 10 Dividend Payers to Buy
Income Investing
David Levy Forecasts a Global Recession in 2016
Unless the company makes a surprising mistake, its shares could continue to rise.
Nike, which made it into the top five for the first time in its second qualifying year, is respected for having one of the best-known brands in the world. Its “swoosh” icon is omnipresent at many sports events and was even visible at the most recent Milan Design Week. Nike focuses on basics, performs consistently, and remains dominant year after year, says Maple Capital’s Boland.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST improvements this year was delivered by McDonald’s. Although it barely eked into the top half of the survey, it seems to have recovered from an earlier reputational hit. The company ranked No. 3 in 2012. Steve Easterbrook took the reins as CEO last year, and his turnaround plan is working. By the first quarter of 2016, the new all-day breakfast and value menu he instituted helped the fast-food company beat analysts’ expectations for three straight quarters. U.S. same-store sales have turned positive after two negative years.
McDonald’s isn’t afraid to take risks and experiment, says Cornell’s Hartzell. When it discovered “wraps didn’t work,” management said, “OK, let’s try all-day breakfast. Brilliant,” he says.
McDonald’s stock has risen 26% since the previous survey.
Microsoft rose fewer spots this year, but made it into the top 15. For years, the Redmond, Wash.–based company has faced declining demand for personal computers and, consequently, for its operating software. Respondents said that CEO Satya Nadella, who took the top job in February 2014, has focused on Microsoft’s core competencies, and that the company’s Windows 10 operating system has proved more popular than expected. The move into cloud computing services is also paying off.
WELLS FARGO’S ABRUPT FALL is the biggest point decline in this year’s survey, and the reasons for it are a bit of a mystery. The stock price of America’s largest bank by market value has slid 15% since the last survey, but that is hardly a washout.
The San Francisco–based bank’s huge mortgage unit has been the focus of recent regulatory scrutiny, and it agreed in February to pay $1.2 billion to the federal government to settle claims of “reckless origination and underwriting.” Worries about the bank’s energy loans are growing; Wells Fargo has increased its loan-loss provisioning.
Other financial companies, such as MasterCard (MA) and Visa, also fell. MasterCard slipped to No. 18 from No. 8, and Visa dropped to No. 22 from No. 4. As with Wells Fargo, the factors that trimmed their respect scores are difficult to parse, with their stock prices up 1% and 13%, respectively. There is some unease regarding the impact on both companies of growing cashless payment systems, and some investors wonder whether the two card companies can keep up. “The landscape of paying bills is changing, and corporate analysis [in the industry] has become a little less sure,” says veteran money manager Matthew Mezmar with Wells Fargo Advisors.
It is possible, too, that both have lost some luster due to many credit-card breaches, and to consumer and vendor confusion at checkouts caused by new chip-card technology.
NEAR THE BOTTOM of Barron’s list you’ll find some other financial giants, includingCitigroup (C) and HSBC Holdings (HSBC), still smarting from the financial crisis of 2008-09. The exception is JPMorgan Chase (JPM), down slightly to No. 42 from No. 37.
This year’s Most Respected ranking has 13 new entrants, replacing companies that dropped off primarily due to a change in market value. Starbucks (SBUX) at No. 11, is a newcomer, given the surge in its market value. Goldman Sachs (GS) and Volkswagen(VOW.Germany) both exited the list, as their market value fell below the cutoff after big stock drops.
It is obvious why tobacco companies don’t get much respect. As one respondent put it years ago, “they kill their customers.” Chinese companies typically score poorly in investor esteem due to China’s weak rule of law, poor corporate governance, and corporate opacity. No. 100 is China Construction Bank (939.Hong Kong), which arguably suffered a double whammy—as a bank and a Chinese company.
Of the 100 largest public companies, 45 are headquartered outside the U.S., not including companies like Medtronic (MDT), which have operating headquarters here but are domiciled abroad. Last year 44 companies were based outside the U.S. The most esteemed foreign firm? Nestlé (NESN.Switzerland), at No. 12, up from No. 14.
AS THE FREQUENT LEADERS on this list attest, companies that earn investors’ respect generally reward shareholders over time. Conversely, corporate wrongdoing, once exposed, often leads to plunging stock prices. Troubled drug firm Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (VRX) is a prime example. Not too long ago, it might have qualified to be considered for inclusion on our list, based on its market value. With the shares down 85% following a raft of management mistakes, the company no longer does.
That’s a lesson for all corporations wishing to stay in investors’ good graces. Respect is hard to define, but easy to lose.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/j-j-supplants-apple-as-barrons-most-respected-company-1465020337
-
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) Extending Consumer Segment: Smart Strategy?
Jun 3, 2016 | BidnessEtc
By Nida Ahmad
Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) said Thursday that it was acquiring privately held Vogue International LLC for $3.3 billion in cash to boost future growth prospects via extension of its consumer segment for hair care and other personal care products.
J&J stock gained 1.66% to touch a high of $114.65 after the news came up. The shares closed at $114.41, having gained 1.45% overall in yesterday's trading, adding to the encouraging performance of the stock this year. The stock has gained 10.24% YtD, significantly outperforming the NYSE ARCA Pharmaceutical Index (DRG) which has actually lost 4.01% in the same time-frame.
Vogue International has a valuable line of over-the-counter health-care products including shampoos, conditioners, treatments, styling products, body care, and bath products. Most of these hair products are made with natural ingredients like coconut water, shea butter, and bamboo fibers, with minimal use of chemicals.
These near-organic products have gained high demand in the OTC health care markets and represent a fast expanding segment. Expansion in this high growth area has been a goal for J&J's management for long, and the company believes that its consumer business is headed for strong growth in the coming years.
The privately held hair care products maker has grabbed revenues worth $319 million in the 12 months ended March 31 2016, as per Moody's recent research report. The May 2016 note also stated that the company's efforts to boost distribution in lucrative markets would significantly add to its sales growth moving forward. Vogue's sales have been growing at a hefty 25% annual growth rate, as per Wells Fargo's recent estimates.
J&J will enhance the reach of Vogue's products by taking them to big store brands like Costco. As reported by the company's spokesman Mark Boston, the company is currently the eight largest maker of hair care products in the US, and will now move to the fourth spot once it does business with Vogue.
Jorge Mesquita, Worldwide Chairman of the Consumer Segment at J&J, highlighted the benefits of this acquisition saying: "Our acquisition of Vogue International's full line of leading advanced hair care products sold in the US and in 38 countries will strengthen our global presence in this important category. Vogue International's commitment to quality, innovation, and consumer preference complement our Consumer portfolio, while also presenting attractive hair care category growth opportunities for Johnson & Johnson."Smart Move, Perfect Timing
J&J has made a smart move at a crucial time as it was recently forced to recall iconic brands like children's Tylenol, besides shutting down a key manufacturing plant amid quality control problems. The company also lost billions of dollars in sales in the past few months after cases of a suspected link between ovarian cancer and talcum powder use.
The matter ruined the company's reputation leading customers away from J&J's age-old product toward organic brands. The company's baby care business in the US suffered a major blow in1QFY16 with sales falling by 14%
Along with this, the company was also forced to shut down a key manufacturing plant after quality issues emerged. J&J has faced mounting losses in its consumer segment, which reported sales of $3.19 billion in the recent quarter, exhibiting a decline of 3.6% on a QoQ basis. For full fiscal year 2015, revenues from J&J's consumer segment stood at $13.5 billion, representing a fall of 6.9% YoY. The segment's contribution toward overall sales of the company has reduced from 21.5% in 2012 to 19.3% in 2015.
J&J's decision to acquire Vogue will not only provide a much-needed boost to its consumer segment but will also play a key role in a revamp of the company's brand image with a shift from chemicals to organics.Focus on Acquisitions to Boost Consumer Segment
This acquisition also makes one thing clear: J&J has revived interest in an expansion-via-acquisitions strategy to derive long term growth for its consumer segment. It also reflects the company's intention to get rid of its slow growth assets, and instead focus on core growth areas like skin care and oral care.
Recently, the company made some other smart acquisitions in line with this strategy. It acquired Hipoglos, a diaper rash cream from P&G in Brazil in March, 2015. Last month, J&J went for a deal to extend its reach in the fast expanding market of dermatology, acquiring privately held NeoStrata Company, Inc., a global leader in dermocosmetics. Both these deals are expected to complete by the end of this quarter.Sell-Side
The sell-side is moderately bullish on J&J stock. Out of a total of 25 analysts covering the stock, 11 rate it a Buy while 14 recommend a Hold. The average 12-month price assigned by analysts is $117.83, signifying an upside of 2.9%, when compared to the stock's closing price of $114.49 on June 2, 2016.
http://www.bidnessetc.com/69912-johnson-johnson-extending-consumer-segment-smart-strategy/
-
Commentary: A plaintiff's witness in the baby powder case
Jun 3, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Roberta B. Ness
"What you don't know won't hurt you" may not work when it comes to healthy aging. You can't avert a risk you don't know about. Today I tell a story about baby powder, made by one of America's most trusted companies.
I have become an expert witness helping thousands of women who want to sue Johnson & Johnson, the No. 1 maker of talcum baby powder. Why? Because talc causes ovarian cancer, dreaded for its deadliness.
If you go to the websites of sources that provide trusted information about cancer risks, such as the National Cancer Institute or American Cancer Society, you will not see them suggest that talc causes ovarian cancer. But two recent juries agreed with me that it does: one awarding a verdict of $72 million and another awarding $55 million.
Johnson & Johnson is appealing both verdicts and denies that there is any link between talcum baby powder and ovarian cancer.
It seems odd that none of the cancer agencies warn about this. It turns out that J&J and its supplier of talc, Imerys, years ago set up a task force to challenge the emerging scientific evidence and to prevent regulation of talc by way of corp-orate influence.HEALTHSoulCycle devotees are religious about their workoutsKids benefit by keeping active at home, schoolCommentary: A plaintiff's witness in the baby powder caseFeeling stressed about all the rain? Houston needs a breakJury is still out on benefits of statins for healthy senior
Scientists hired by this task force analyzed the existing literature and published in respected journals that the studies were inconsistent.
These industry-hired scientists primarily argued that the research showed: 1) an association so minor as to have likely occurred by chance; 2) no greater effect when more talc is used; 3) no biologic mechanism.
But here's what the literature really shows. Talc use increases ovarian cancer risk by 30 to 60 percent. That's the same increase as has been seen between postmenopausal hormone therapy and breast cancer and the reason why most women now avoid hormone therapy use unless they have bad menopausal symptoms. Calculated another way, avoidance of talc would protect an estimated one-quarter or more of women currently being placed at risk for ovarian cancer.
Poorly designed studies sometimes don't show a significant association, but in well-conducted ones, the risk elevation is extraordinarily consistent. All well-designed studies that had the data to analyze dose response found that talc users were, statistically, significantly more likely to develop ovarian cancer with more talc applications. Finally, there is, in fact, a plausible biologic mechanism: Talc causes inflammation, a mechanism known to cause many types of cancer.
J&J should have either slapped a warning label on talcum powder or taken the talc out. The label would only have to recommend against using powder in a woman's genital area; use on other parts of the body seems safe. Taking talc out would leave baby powder made from corn starch, which works perfectly well - in fact J&J itself sells such a product.
Imerys, the talc supplier, began placing a warning about ovarian cancer risk from genital talc use on the talc it sends to J&J over 10 years ago.
The case for which I was the lead expert witness (the $72 million award) involved an African-American woman named Jacqueline Fox who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer at age 59 and died just weeks before the trial at age 62, after three long years of suffering. She had been a salt-of-the-earth type woman who took in other people's grandchildren.
One thing that inflamed the jury and resulted in their awarding so much money was that J&J had specifically targeted African-American and Hispanic women, knowing that these two ethnic groups of women used talc at a higher rate than other ethnicities. A product Fox used all her life was J&J Shower-to-Shower - a name synonymous with daily use. Over 14,000 times Fox applied talc over every part of her body.
A second thing that fueled the size of the award was the arrogance of the defendants, J&J and Imerys created a company Monopoly Board where the object was to get around the board so as to bring the talc product to market. However, there were skull and crossbones indicating grave danger on certain places on the board, specifically where governmental agencies appeared and for litigation risks, such as the link to ovarian cancer.
Baby powder - the very words bring a warm feeling - seems like the last thing to generate a conspiracy theory. But please - if you are a woman and you are dusting your genital area with talc-containing baby powder - stop. And then there's the question, if you can't trust the makers of baby powder, who can you trust? Maybe we should all be healthy (and health) skeptics. Instead of "what you don't know won't hurt you," we might wonder, "Am I paranoid, or are they out to get me?"
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/health/article/Commentary-A-plaintiff-s-witness-in-the-baby-7962523.php
-
Using Baby Powder Could Cause Ovarian Cancer, Lawsuits Allege
Jun 3, 2016 | Broadly
By Molly Oswaks
Thousands of women have filed class-action lawsuits claiming Johnson & Johnson failed to notify them that their talc-containing products could put them at risk of cancer.
Applying a fine dusting of baby powder to the outer labia, post-shower or bath, is one of those long-practiced feminine hygiene hacks that you may have learned from your mother, who likely learned it from hers, and so on, back through the matrilineal generations.
Baby powder has long been recommended to relieve chafing or to reduce the appearance of bumpy post-shave inflammation; however, studies show that the very product many women use to soothe a sore vulva may in fact end up causing a world of pain—in the form of notoriously hard-to-detect ovarian cancer.
Read more: Inside the Lawsuits that Could Finally Take Down the FLDS Cult
This year, the American Cancer Society released new estimates for the number of women they predict will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer this year alone: 22,280. Dr. Daniel W. Cramer, who is the lead author of the first-ever study to link talc use and ovarian cancer, estimates that about 10 percent of those diagnoses can be attributed to regular, long-term talc use. (Though Dr. Cramer has conducted extensive research linking talc with ovarian cancer—including a case study last year that found a 33 percent increase in ovarian cancer risk among women who applied talc to their genitals—"epidemiological studies have produced mixed results," according to theScientist.)
Now, over 1,000 women are suing Johnson & Johnson for allegedly covering up this alleged cancer risk. Earlier this year, two separate juries ruled against the company: In February, a St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to the family of a woman named Jacqueline Fox, who died from ovarian cancer in October 2015 after years of using talc-containing products from Johnson & Johnson, most notably their baby powder and Shower-to-Shower body powder marketed for feminine hygiene.
Last month, another St. Louis jury awarded $55 million to ovarian cancer survivor Gloria Ristesund. For over 40 years, Ristesund had made habitual use of the same Johnson & Johnson talc-containing products that Ms. Fox and dozens of other plaintiffs in the talc litigation used regularly over the course of several decades.
Danielle Ward Mason is a principal attorney at the law firm Beasley Allen, which represented both Ms. Fox's family and Gloria Ristesund in their cases. She spends much of her time traveling around the country to collect preservation depositions from women who are dying from late-stage ovarian cancer. Should they not live to see their day in court, she hopes to make sure that justice is served on their behalf.
I've done depositions in hospital rooms; I've done them in nursing homes.Collecting these in extremis depositions, as they are called, is not easy. "It's such an emotional process," Mason says. "You are kind of their beacon of hope at that very tough time in their life. I've held lots of hands, and I've sat and cried with many of them. Some of them can't even get out of their own bed. I've done depositions in hospital rooms; I've done them in nursing homes. Usually, within a few weeks to a month after the deposition, I'm usually notified that they've passed away."
Mason believes that both of her recent cases highlight the severity and scope of the problem: Of the $72 million awarded to Fox's family, for instance, $62 million were in punitive damages. "I believe the numbers show that these jurors not only believe that this is a true issue, but believe also that Johnson & Johnson should be severely punished for it," she says. "The majority of these verdicts are punitive damage awards, and those are only given when there is evidence that shows that the company has behaved in a reckless way, in a way that disregards human life."
Despite the size and scope of these suits, Johnson & Johnson is not ready to accept the blame that juries have now twice placed on their product. In fact, on their corporate website, they have devoted an entire page to refuting claims that talc is carcinogenic. And, after Johnson & Johnson lost the second lawsuit in May, a company spokesperson said in a statement that "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."
The problem, as Mason sees it, is that the company is unwilling to accept the correlation between talc and ovarian cancer as scientifically significant; they have doubled down on their claims that talc is safe and that the science doesn't support causation. According to Mason, Johnson & Johnson thinks "that we should be able to show and prove that talc causes the single genetic mutation that then gets copied over and over again and then results in cancer. That's not the theory of our case."
Read more: Two Stay-at-Home Moms Are Waging War Against the Feds Over Illegal Toxic Waste
The defense also refutes the notion that talc has the ability to migrate from the external genitals to the inside of your pelvic tract, through your fallopian tubes, and into your internal reproductive organs, according to Mason. "We have been able to show—and even their own experts have agreed—that talc creates a foreign-body inflammatory reaction in the pelvic system," she says. "Inflammation is something that we all know, and they agree, is an environment in which cancers grow; we don't have to prove that talc is the sole cause of cancer. We just have to prove that it's a contributing factor."
If this news of talc's danger comes as a surprise, reader: you are not alone. "When I first heard it, I was like, You've gotta be kidding me! It just defied all of what I'd grown up with," says Mason. "I'm a black woman, and the practice of using talcum powder—all over the body, and particularly in the genital area—that is something that I grew up knowing about. It's something that's really culturally prevalent in our community."
A 1992 Johnson & Johnson memo obtained by Bloomberg shows that the company has intentionally marketed its baby powder to communities of color—specifically, "African American and Hispanic" markets. Disturbingly, the same memo references "negative publicity from the health community," including "cancer linkage," as a "major obstacle" to sales.
According to Mason, black women tend to have a naturally protective effect against ovarian cancer, for what could be a number of reasons. "If we didn't use talc, then we're at a lower baseline risk for ovarian cancer versus most other women," she notes. "But when you add talc to the mix, we actually increase our risk anywhere from 400 percent to 500 percent."
"It just really paints a very nasty story," adds Mason. "I've read the literature, and I've talked to our experts. It is quite convincing, what's out there. There is definitely enough cause for concern, for Johnson & Johnson to have put a warning label on the bottle"—which they have not done—"that's just as clear-cut as clear can be."
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/using-baby-powder-could-cause-ovarian-cancer-lawsuits-allege
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Add recipients
Suggested