Preview Newsletter
ILR Talcum Coverage
-
Johnson & Johnson expected to appeal recent $55 million talc verdict
May 9, 2016 | Madison County Record
By Abby Sinclair
Johnson & Johnson is expected to appeal a $55 million jury verdict reached May 2 in St. Louis City Circuit Court in favor of a 62-year woman who claimed its talcum powder caused her ovarian cancer. -
J&J: Ovarian cancer ads saturating St. Louis market include info not allowed at trial
May 3, 2016 | Madison County Record
Attorney advertising has prejudiced the regional jury pool against Johnson & Johnson, the company argued between trials that resulted in verdicts of $72 million and $55 million. -
Suit claims use of baby powder led to fatal cancer
Aug 15, 2016 | Cook County Record
By Louie Torres
An administrator of a deceased woman's estate is suing Johnson & Johnson; Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc.; Imerys Talc America Inc.; Luzenac America Inc.; Personal Care Products Council; and the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, citing alleged failure to warn, negligence, and product liability in connection with a woman's death from ovarian cancer. -
Class actions brewing in state over Johnson & Johnson baby powder and cancer
Jun 23, 2016 | Louisiana Record
By Andrew Burger
At the request of plaintiff Paula Jackson, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana New Orleans Division recently removed Rio Tinto Minerals Inc. from a lawsuit alleging the talcum powder products caused the New Orleans woman's ovarian cancer, but Jackson's case -- and many others like it -- are far from over. -
Plaintiff blames ovarian cancer on exposure to talc, manufactured and sold by the defendants
May 27, 2016 | Louisiana Record
By Molly English-Bowers
A New Orleans woman is suing a corporation over her exposure to a substance that allegedly led to her developing ovarian cancer. -
Massive talc verdicts in St. Louis lead to windfall of clients for Beasley Allen
Aug 4, 2016 | Legal NewsLine
By John Breslin
Seventeen thousand individuals contacted a law firm in the weeks after the family of a Alabama woman was awarded $72 million by a jury, one that found Johnson & Johnson hid information linking ovarian cancer to talcum powder. -
Missouri jury orders Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million in class action over talc powder
Feb 26, 2016 | Legal Newsline
By Jessica Karmasek
This week, a Missouri jury found Johnson & Johnson liable for injuries resulting from the use of its talc-containing products, awarding the family of an Alabama woman at the center of the class action lawsuit $72 million. -
The tragic truth about talcum powder finally comes out
Jun 7, 2016 | West Virginia Record
By Zak Zatezalo
Talcum powder is back in the news following a May 2 verdict against Johnson & Johnson, in which it was ordered to pay $55 million to a woman who contracted ovarian cancer after years of her using Johnson’s Baby Powder for feminine hygiene.
Madison County Record
Cook County Record
Louisiana Record
Legal NewsLine
West Virginia Record
-
Johnson & Johnson expected to appeal recent $55 million talc verdict
May 9, 2016 | Madison County Record
By Abby Sinclair
Johnson & Johnson is expected to appeal a $55 million jury verdict reached May 2 in St. Louis City Circuit Court in favor of a 62-year woman who claimed its talcum powder caused her ovarian cancer.
“The evidence presented to the jury misrepresented and distorted the science regarding talc and ovarian cancer,” Gene Williams, an attorney for J&J, told the Record. “The scientific reality is that cosmetic talc does not cause cancer.”
Carol Goodrich, a J&J spokeswoman, said in an emailed 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.”
“We understand that women and families affected by ovarian cancer are searching for answers, and we deeply sympathize with all who have been affected by this devastating disease with no known cause,” Goodrich stated.
“Johnson & Johnson has always taken questions about the safety of our products extremely seriously. 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. 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. We will appeal the recent verdict and continue to defend the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder.”
More than 1,000 suits against the company have mounted in state and federal courts across the country. Multi-district litigation (MDL) has been discussed, but has not been established for the claims arising across the country.
The lawsuits claim J&J had in-depth knowledge of the link between ovarian cancer and their talc-based products for decades, as far back as the 1970s. Plaintiffs say the company did nothing in order to continue selling more products, even targeting the women who grew up using them.
Last week’s verdict for plaintiff Gloria Ristesund of South Dakota - awarded $50 million in punitive damages and $5 million in compensatory damages - came on the heels of a $72 million verdict in St. Louis in February for the family of Jacqueline Fox, a 62-year-old woman from Alabama who died of ovarian cancer last fall.
Just as Fox’s pathologist allegedly found talc particles in her ovaries, some studies from 1971 on have supported a link between talc and ovarian cancer. When dusted on genitals, underwear or sanitary products, the studies note that talc particles can travel up the reproductive tract where they can eventually become lodged in the ovaries, inflamed, and possibly lead to cancer.
“It was a great win for a very deserving lady,” said plaintiff attorney David Dearing of Beasley Allen in Montgomery, Ala.
“She [Ristesund] went through a very traumatic and life-changing event and we couldn’t be happier for her. J&J has known for a long time — decades — that their talc products have been associated with ovarian cancer. We hope that these verdicts will force them to take note, do the right thing, and put a warning label on their products because women should know that they are at an increased risk for developing ovarian cancer if they use them.”
According to Beasley Allen founder Jere Beasley, Ristesund's case was slated as a "defense pick" after the plaintiffs first selected the Fox case to go to trial
"If they can't win that one, they can't win one,” Beasley said. “They're going to have to come to the table and start settling cases."
In a press release, Beasley is quoted as saying: “We are calling on the bosses at J&J to establish a compensation fund that will be adequate to compensate all of the thousands of victims who have suffered greatly because of Johnson & Johnson’s intentional wrongdoing. We are also calling on this company to either pull the talc products from the market or at the very least give an adequate warning to women so they can make an informed choice. If J&J refuses, our law firm and those other firms working with us are dedicated to continuing our mission, and that is to obtain total and complete justice for all of Johnson & Johnson’s victims. The ball is in their court and our hope is J&J will change its corporate culture and do the right thing.”
The first talc case went to trial in federal court in South Dakota in 2013 on the claims of plaintiff Deane Berg of Sioux Falls. A physician’s assistant, Berg was diagnosed with stage III ovarian cancer at age 49 in 2006.
The jury did not award Berg monetary damages, but it did, however, declare that Johnson & Johnson had intentionally hidden facts about the risks of talcum powder use and cancer.
The next talcum powder case in Missouri is scheduled for September.
-
J&J: Ovarian cancer ads saturating St. Louis market include info not allowed at trial
May 3, 2016 | Madison County Record
Attorney advertising has prejudiced the regional jury pool against Johnson & Johnson, the company argued between trials that resulted in verdicts of $72 million and $55 million.
Noce
City Circuit Judge Rex Burlison, who held the first trial in February, denied Johnson & Johnson’s motion to transfer the second trial to a venue at least 150 miles away.
That trial ended on Monday, with jurors awarding $5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages to South Dakota resident Gloria Ristesund.
Burlison plans to hold another trial in September.
Dozens of plaintiffs in three separate suits claim Johnson & Johnson talcum powder caused ovarian cancer.
They claim Johnson & Johnson concealed the risks from customers.
Johnson & Johnson argues that medical science has not linked talc, the primary component of talcum powder, to ovarian cancer.
The argument failed at the first trial, after Burlison denied a motion to exclude experts who would connect plaintiff Jacqueline Fox’s cancer to talc.
For the second trial, Johnson & Johnson adopted a strategy of flight.
“The onslaught of law firm television advertising about talc and ovarian cancer continues in St. Louis,” wrote attorney Gerard Noce of HeplerBroom.
“St. Louis is the primary market for advertising because plaintiffs need a St. Louis plaintiff to fix jurisdiction and venue in the city of St. Louis.”
Noce wrote that at a hearing in March, plaintiff counsel James Onder said, “There is incredible competition for city of St. Louis plaintiffs.”
Noce wrote, “While winning the competition may be paramount to the law firms, the court’s paramount concern must be ensuring a fair trial…There are now at least eight law firms running advertisements on television.
“There are also print and radio advertisements targeting the St. Louis market.
“These advertisements have tainted the jury pool for the Ristesund trial.”
He wrote that in March, law firms ran 830 advertisements about talc and ovarian cancer on St. Louis television stations.
“Over 83 percent of those advertisements contain information this court has ruled cannot be presented to the jury, such as the $72 million Fox verdict,” Noce wrote.
According to Noce, Onder’s firm ran seven local radio advertisements, and three mentioned the verdict. The firm ran a print advertisement in the St. Louis Business Journal that mentioned the verdict. It also ran national advertisements about the verdict on the Andy Griffith Show and In the Heat of the Night.
Noce wrote that Brown and Croupen mentioned it in two television advertisements that ran at least 416 times in March and would continue running during trial.
He inserted into the brief an image of a bearded pitchman with a $72 million headline and a telephone number.
Noce wrote that Gori Julian mentioned the verdict in two advertisements that aired 99 times.
He wrote that other firms advertised nationally on the Today Show, Law & Order, Gunsmoke, Jerry Springer Show, and other shows.
“These national ads and likely others are also being seen in St. Louis by potential jurors,” Noce wrote.
“Combined with ads running on local stations, the court should presume prejudice to defendants.”
Noce works at the St. Louis office of Hepler Broom. Beth Bauer, of the firm’s Edwardsville office, also represents Johnson & Johnson.
So do several lawyers at Shook, Hardy and Bacon in Kansas City, Mo.
William Blair and Stephanie Rados, both of Onder’s firm in Webster Groves, Mo., represent plaintiffs.
So do Timothy Porter, Patrick Malouf, and John Givens, all of Jackson, Miss., Allen Smith of Ridgeland, Miss., and Ted Meadows of Montgomery, Ala.
The same group has filed two suits in Madison County, where Circuit Judge William Mudge plans a management conference on June 29.
The Goldenberg Heller firm represents a talc plaintiff in U.S. district court, where District Judge David Herndon has set trial next February.
-
Suit claims use of baby powder led to fatal cancer
Aug 15, 2016 | Cook County Record
By Louie Torres
An administrator of a deceased woman's estate is suing Johnson & Johnson; Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc.; Imerys Talc America Inc.; Luzenac America Inc.; Personal Care Products Council; and the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, citing alleged failure to warn, negligence, and product liability in connection with a woman's death from ovarian cancer.
Gylmore Simpson, as special administrator of the estate of Brenda Simpson, filed a complaint on July 25 in Cook County Circuit Court against the defendants, alleging that the talc in Johnson & Johnson baby powder caused Brenda Simpson to develop ovarian cancer.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Brenda Simpson was diagnosed with ovarian cancer which she believes was caused by using baby powder. The plaintiff holds the defendants responsible because they allegedly included talc as one of the ingredients of the baby powder while failing to inform regarding the potential health risk of using the product.
The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against the defendants in an amount in excess of $50,000, and is represented by Michael T. Mertz and Brian J. Holmes of Hurley McKenna & Mertz, P.C. in Chicago.
Cook County Circuit Court Case number 16L007381
-
Class actions brewing in state over Johnson & Johnson baby powder and cancer
Jun 23, 2016 | Louisiana Record
By Andrew Burger
At the request of plaintiff Paula Jackson, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana New Orleans Division recently removed Rio Tinto Minerals Inc. from a lawsuit alleging the talcum powder products caused the New Orleans woman's ovarian cancer, but Jackson's case -- and many others like it -- are far from over.
Jackson's suit named Johnson & Johnson as the primary defendant. She claims that her regular application of talc-based Shower to Shower and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder to her perineum on a daily basis from 1974 until 2015 is to blame for her ovarian cancer.
Her suit is just one of more than 1,200 federal and state lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson claiming the New Jersey company ignored scientific studies linking talcum-powder products to cancer.
Melissa Landry, executive director of the Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch, believes that the state is ripe for a class-action suit involving the cases because Lousiana courts here are considered "plaintiff friendly," and its attorneys "talented and creative" when it comes to establishing class actions.
"The notion of our plaintiff-friendly courts creates at least the perception there is an incentive for filing lawsuits, and class-action lawsuits in particular, in Louisiana courts," Landry told the Louisiana Record. "Louisiana is a sought-after jurisdiction for class-action lawsuits."
In fact, that is why Louisiana routinely ranks poorly in comparison to other states on surveys pertaining to the state's legal climate.
The groundwork has already been set for the class-action suit against Johnson & Johnson.
Earlier this year, a St. Louis court ordered the company to pay $72 million to the family of Jackie Fox, a woman who died from ovarian cancer; and last month, it was hit with another $55 million ruling by another jury in St. Louis in a suit filed by Gloria Ristesund, of South Dakota.
"It will be very interesting to watch what transpires here in Louisiana in the wake of the St. Louis jury trials," attorney Peter Russell, of McBride & Russell Law Firm LLC in Gretna, told the Louisiana Record.
In addition to the multi-million dollar judgments, a lot in the way of new information has come out in the cases tried so far, Russell pointed out.
In the first lawsuit filed against Johnson & Johnson over the talcum powder issue, a South Dakota court ruled in 2013 that Deane Berg's use of Shower to Shower and Johnson's Baby Powder was linked to the onset of her ovarian cancer. During the trial, an attorney representing the multinational consumer products manufacturer admitted company executives had known about the links between its talcum powder products and ovarian cancer for years, but decided the risk was not significant enough to require a product warning.
That admission came back to haunt Johnson & Johnson in both of the St. Louis cases.
"The basis for the judges' decisions was that Johnson & Johnson was aware of the links between its talcum powder products and cancer for more than 20 years, but chose to withhold that information from the public," Russell said.
A study conducted by researchers at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville and published earlier this month in Cancer Epidemiologyreinforced at least part of what Johnson & Johnson allegedly already knew -- African-American women who regularly use talcum powder are at a greater risk for ovarian cancer compared to their peers who don’t use powder.
This particularly doesn't bode well for Johnson & Johnson because previous suits revealed the company slanted its marketing efforts for the sale of talcum powders specifically toward African-American women in the 1990s.
Like Landry, Russell thinks it's just a matter of time before a class-action suit is filed in Louisiana over the cases.
"You could see a very large class action here," he said.
-
Plaintiff blames ovarian cancer on exposure to talc, manufactured and sold by the defendants
May 27, 2016 | Louisiana Record
By Molly English-Bowers
A New Orleans woman is suing a corporation over her exposure to a substance that allegedly led to her developing ovarian cancer.
Paula Jackson filed the suit March 16 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana New Orleans Division against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., Luzenac America Inc., Rio Tinto Minerals Inc., John Does/Jane Does 1-30, and Unknown Businesses and/or Corporations A-Z.
While the first four defendants are corporations, defendants Does are representatives of those corporations whose conduct allegedly caused or contributed to the damages of the plaintiff. Defendants Unknown likewise are entities whose conduct allegedly caused or contributed to the damages to the plaintiff.
Defendants Johnson manufactured products, composed almost entirely of talc, that are at issue in this case. Defendants Luzenac and Rio have continually marketed talc as safe for human use.
The plaintiff applied the defendants' products to her groin for feminine hygiene purposes from 1974 to 2015, a foreseeable use of those products based on their advertising, according to the complaint.
On Sept. 27, 2015, the plaintiff was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. At that time she was 62 and allegedly did not have any risk factors for the disease.
According to the suit, from as early as 1961, research showed that the use of talc in consumer products could be dangerous. Despite the defendants' alleged awareness that women were three times more likely to develop ovarian cancer after daily use of talcum powder, they continued to market and sell it.
As a result of this alleged conduct, the plaintiff was injured and suffered damages, namely ovarian cancer, which will require multiple treatments and surgeries.
The plaintiff brings six counts against the defendants, among the counts: strict product liability, negligence and breach of warranties. She requests that the following damages be considered separately and individually under each count for the purpose of determining the amount of money that will fairly compensate her: severe impairment to her ovaries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, lost wages and income, fear of cancer, physical impairment and disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and punitive damages, attorney fees and other relief the court deems proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Eusi H. Phillips of the Law Office of Eusi H. Phillips LLC in New Orleans and Marion D. Floyd of the Law Office of Marion D. Floyd in Kenner.
-
Massive talc verdicts in St. Louis lead to windfall of clients for Beasley Allen
Aug 4, 2016 | Legal NewsLine
By John Breslin
Seventeen thousand individuals contacted a law firm in the weeks after the family of a Alabama woman was awarded $72 million by a jury, one that found Johnson & Johnson hid information linking ovarian cancer to talcum powder.
Jere Beasley and his Alabama firm, Beasley Allen, and lawyers in Missouri, already have 750 pending cases involving either individuals claiming they suffered ovarian cancer because of their use of talc, or family members of those deceased.
Of the estimated 17,000 that contacted his law offices, Beasley said his team and partners are investigating close to 12,000.
Beasley represented Jacqueline Fox, a 62-year-old from Birmingham, AL, who died while the case against Johnson & Johnson was still pending. Her son was added as a plaintiff after her death.
A jury in St. Louis awarded the family $10 million in compensatory damages, and $62 million in punitive damages, $1 million for every year of her life, a juror explained to Beasley after the three-week trial ended in February. It was much more than the legal team had asked for, or expected.
“I would have been shocked if it had been a verdict for the defendant,” Beasley told Legal Newsline. “But I was surprised at the amount and the reason for it.”
Michael Jordan, a partner with the Nexsen Pruet law firm in South Carolina who has defended companies against talcum powder lawsuits, said juries in large cities and in certain parts of the country can be very generous with awards.
“Verdicts of these sizes are not surprising in a large city where the defendant is a corporation,” said Jordan, adding that the amount ultimately transferred is often much, much smaller.
St. Louis, where many hundreds of cases against Johnson & Johnson have, or will, be filed, has a reputation as one of those cities where juries have delivered huge dollar awards, Jordan said. He cited areas of Texas, also.
But Beasley said the jury in the Fox case included medical personnel and executives.
The $72 million award was one of two recent verdicts against Johnson & Johnson after the jury found it covered up concerns over talcum powder and links to ovarian cancer.
A second trial in St. Louis ended with the plaintiff, Gloria Ristesund of South Dakota, being awarded $55 million in compensation and punitive damages.
In a third, somewhat different case, a California woman won a $13 million lawsuit in May 2015 against Colgate-Palmolive after a jury determined she developed mesothelioma from asbestos in the company’s Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder.
Cases against Johnson & Johnson and other firms that used talc in their products have been filed in various part of the country, including in Louisiana, California and Florida.
Talc is a naturally occurring mineral mined in various parts of the world. Traces of asbestos have been found in the mineral, but since the 1970s companies have been aware of its dangers and made sure no trace made it to products placed on shelves, according to Jordan.
Jordan, who has successfully defended companies accused of selling asbestos-laced talcum powder and other products, said the California case was different from those in St. Louis.
In California, the claim was the product was contaminated with asbestos. In the two cases in St. Louis, it was argued the talcum powder itself caused the cancer.
Johnson & Johnson is appealing the two recent verdicts and the size of the awards.
"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 in a statement following the verdict in the Ristesund case.
It also said 1,400 cases are pending against the company.
Jordan said he does not know the basis of the appeal, but that, if nothing else, the company can argue the amount of the award “shocks the conscience.”
He added, “You have ovarian cancer. It’s a terrible disease. And if you are making the choice between a sympathetic plaintiff and a corporation, there is a bias in favor of the individual.
“The question for Johnson & Johnson is that medical science has not determined whether exposure of internal organs to talc is problematic. That’s what the real question is, as there is no real medical answer.”
Between six and 10 limited studies have been carried out, and they either showed no causal link or are inconclusive, said Jordan.
The American Cancer Society said more research is needed. For any individual woman, if there is an increased risk, the overall increase is likely to very be small, the ACS notes on its website.
But Beasley said he is certain the ovarian cancer that killed his client, Fox, was caused by Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder, and that the company covered up the link between the two.
Fox’s attorneys introduced a 1997 internal memo from a Johnson & Johnson medical consultant suggesting that “anybody who denies (the) risks” between 'hygenic' talc use and ovarian cancer will be publicly perceived in the same light as those who denied a link between smoking cigarettes and cancer."
“Denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary,” the consultant wrote.
Beasley believes Johnson & Johnson will, in the end, have no choice but to settle many of the cases.
-
Missouri jury orders Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million in class action over talc powder
Feb 26, 2016 | Legal Newsline
By Jessica Karmasek
This week, a Missouri jury found Johnson & Johnson liable for injuries resulting from the use of its talc-containing products, awarding the family of an Alabama woman at the center of the class action lawsuit $72 million.
The St. Louis City Circuit Court, in its verdict late Monday, agreed that the company’s baby and body powders contributed to the development of plaintiff Jacqueline Fox’s ovarian cancer.
The jury found Johnson & Johnson guilty of negligence, conspiracy and fraud.
The verdict includes $10 million in actual damages and $62 million in punitive damages.
Fox was diagnosed with ovarian cancer two years ago. She used Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower for feminine hygiene for more than 35 years. She died shortly before the trial began, in October 2015, at age 62.
“What Johnson and Johnson did to cover up what it knew to be the deadly risk of its centerpiece product is simply outrageous,” said Jere L. Beasley, principal and founder of Beasley Allen Law Firm in Montgomery, Alabama.
“It is hard to imagine how corporate executives could be so callous. But the internal company documents that were brought to light through this trial show clearly that that is exactly the case.”
R. Allen Smith Jr. of The Smith Law Firm in Ridgeland, Mississippi, who also helped represent Fox and her family in the lawsuit, said the company deliberately hid the dangers of its products and refused to use a talc substitute.
“Johnson and Johnson chose to hide the risk and keep selling,” he said. “Ms. Fox and many other women have paid and will pay with their lives.”
According to the plaintiff’s attorneys, an estimated 20,000 women are diagnosed each year with ovarian cancer, and more than 14,000 die.
The disease strikes about one in 70 women, though studies show that women who use talc-containing products on their genitals have a one in 50 chance of developing the disease.
An expert at trial testified at least 45,000 women have died as a result of ovarian cancer that could be attributed to talcum powder use on the genitals, and estimated 1,500 women will die within the next year as a result of talc use.
Carol Goodrich, spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson, said in a statement that the talc used in all of the company’s products is “carefully selected” and meets the highest quality, purity and compliance standards.
“The recent jury outcome goes against decades of sound science proving the safety of talc as a cosmetic ingredient in multiple products, and while we sympathize with the family of the plaintiff, we strongly disagree with the outcome,” Goodrich said.
-
The tragic truth about talcum powder finally comes out
Jun 7, 2016 | West Virginia Record
By Zak Zatezalo
Talcum powder is back in the news following a May 2 verdict against Johnson & Johnson, in which it was ordered to pay $55 million to a woman who contracted ovarian cancer after years of her using Johnson’s Baby Powder for feminine hygiene.
This verdict comes on the heels of a $72 million verdict this past February against Johnson & Johnson for the wrongful death of another woman who died of ovarian cancer.
In both instances, the vast majority of these awards constituted punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson for promoting talcum powder as a feminine hygiene product without ever warning about the cancer risks for talcum powder that companies like Johnson & Johnson have known about for decades.
As far back as 1971, British researchers found talc particles “deeply embedded’’ in ovarian tumors when examined microscopically. In 1982, a gynecologist and Harvard Medical School professor, Dr. Daniel Cramer, demonstrated a statistically significant link between ovarian cancer and talcum powder use for perineal dusting. In 2006, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified cosmetic, perineal talc application as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
To date, approximately 20 epidemiological studies, including 16 case-controlled studies have found increased rates of ovarian cancer for women who reported using talc as a feminine hygiene product. And most recently, a new study has found a 33 percent higher rate of ovarian cancer among women who used talc for feminine hygiene.
Unfortunately, Johnson & Johnson knew all about the risk of getting cancer from its Baby Powder and Shower To Shower products for decades. But armed with this knowledge, instead of doing the right thing and warning its customers, Johnson & Johnson actually increased its marketing efforts for these products, particularly to black and Hispanic women, who were among its most loyal consumers.
One of the jury foreman, Krista Smith, commented after the first verdict that Johnson & Johnson’s internal documents provided the most incriminating evidence saying, “It was really clear they were hiding something.”
I have written before about the potential harm from talcum powder from cross-contamination with asbestos fibers, which are often mined in close proximity from adjacent seams, as a result of companies sourcing talc from countries like China and Pakistan that have very few regulations to prevent cross-contamination. Interestingly, Johnson & Johnson’s biggest source of talc comes from the southern province of Guangxi, China.
According to the American Cancer Society, an estimated 22,280 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the United States alone, and approximately 14,240 will die, this year. About one woman in 70 will develop ovarian cancer this year, but studies show that regular talc use puts your odds at approximately one in 50.
Prior to these recent verdicts, concerns about the risks of talc were practically unknown to the general public. But Johnson & Johnson knew. Nevertheless, it continued to promote its Baby and Shower to Shower powders as quintessentially wholesome products for people who wanted to “feel cool, smooth and dry.”
To date, health advocates prior calls for warnings against using talc products for genital hygiene have gone unheeded. As far back as 1999 researchers were astutely pointing out that: “balanced against what are primarily aesthetic reasons for using talc in genital hygiene, the risk benefit decision is not complex. Appropriate warnings should be provided to women about the potential risks of regular use of talc in the genital area.”
Unfortunately, Johnson & Johnson and other distributors chose to ignore and conceal the dangerous truth about their products. As a tragic result, tens of thousands of women are now likely to pay the price for these companies’ conscious disregard of these known safety hazards.
Zatezalo is an attorney for Bordas & Bordas in Wheeling.
Madison County Record
Cook County Record
Louisiana Record
Legal NewsLine
West Virginia Record
Add recipients
Suggested