SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Johnson & Johnson's baby powder has been linked to mesothelioma for the first time in court, with the plaintiffs being awarded at least $37 million (70% to be paid by J&J, and 30% by Imerys SA):
A New Jersey man who sued Johnson & Johnson and other companies after getting cancer he says was caused by asbestos in baby powder has been awarded $30 million by a jury.
A jury of seven women sitting in New Brunswick also decided Thursday that Kendra Lanzo, the wife of Stephen Lanzo III, must be paid an additional $7 million as a result of the mesothelioma contracted by her husband. The jury will decide next week whether to also award punitive damages to the Lanzos.
[...] Johnson & Johnson is responsible for 70 percent of the damages, while France-based Imerys SA must pick up the rest of the tab. Imerys supplied the talc used to manufacture the baby powder.
Previously: The Baby Powder Trials: How Courts Deal with Inconclusive Science
Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $417m in Latest Talc Cancer Case
$417 Million Talc Cancer Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson Tossed Out
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:35PM (10 children)
It was marketed as safe "baby powder", but it was known to be not safe.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @04:47PM (1 child)
as-best-os: A good source of fiber for babies.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @05:14PM
No, no, no
AS best OS! Been using it since 1988.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:17PM
johnson and johnson: a family (killing) company.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Monday April 09 2018, @12:51AM (6 children)
Who "knew"? Birthers? Anti-vaxxers? 9/11 Truthers? There's no good evidence that it's unsafe, the only "studies" that support the claim tend to be people who now have cancer and think that they may remember using talcum powder 30 years earlier. Properly run cohort studies show no evidence of cancer-causation. In the same way that the US Congress has decided scientific facts can be decided by voice vote, so the US courts have now decided that they can be decided by emotive arguments to a randomly chosen group of women.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 09 2018, @06:02PM (5 children)
Who "knew"? Birthers? Anti-vaxxers? 9/11 Truthers?
Johnson & Johnson knew.
FTA:
During the more than two-month trial, Lanzo’s lawyers produced stacks of internal J&J and Imerys files that showed officials of both companies were worried that asbestos was tainting talc used in baby powder and other products as early as 1969.
The link between mesothelioma and asbestos is well established.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @06:50PM (4 children)
At high doses of asbestos. Dose makes the poison.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 09 2018, @07:38PM (3 children)
At high doses of asbestos. Dose makes the poison.
"All levels of asbestos exposure studied to date have demonstrated asbestos-related disease…there is no level of exposure below which clinical effects do not occur.”According to NIOSH [asbestos.com]
(Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @07:48PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday April 09 2018, @09:33PM (1 child)
I know enough to understand that quote is not referring to a model.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @10:56PM
Uh huh. I've seen this game played before. Let's look at the quote in question:
Notice the use of the phrase "there is no level of exposure below which...". This is a phrase used in the US to declare that the toxic material in question follows the linear no-threshold model. For other examples:
The language varies a little, but it's the same. The "no threshold" part of the model is emphasized, while the lack of harm from extremely low doses is not. Some even go as far as to claim it's not "safe" even though, assuming the model is valid, you can get doses low enough that you can expose the entire human race, from the dawn of time to its final extinction, and still not see a measurable effect (the "clinical effects" claim is bunk).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Sunday April 08 2018, @06:28PM (12 children)
Stupid amounts of money to a couple of random people, based on weak facts but lots of emotion. The great American
justicelottery system at work.This will be appealed, of course. Most likely, in the end, the only winners will be the lawyers...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:17PM (3 children)
Eh, I personally really like precedents set that force corporate responsibility. Too many businesses hide their bad practices then throw lots of money at lawyers to get rid of lawsuits.
You more conservative types tend to be all about personal responsibility EXCEPT for any profit motivated business. Then it is just their obligation to the shareholders and morality goes poof in a cloud of guilt.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @03:20AM (2 children)
So what do these court cases have to do with that? There's no demonstration of harm from a corporate actor, which would be the key factor in corporate responsibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @03:48PM (1 child)
Are you serious? You really must be pretty far on some spectrum disorder as you consistently show strange and deficient reading comprehension.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @04:10PM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by sjames on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:22PM (7 children)
In part, that's a result of the federal government claiming and then shirking it's responsibility to the people and leaving it to individual court cases.
It's really not controversial that asbestos in fine particle form can cause huge medical problems. It's also not controversial that at least until 1976, cosmetic talcum powder often contained asbestos in fine particle form (after 1976, there are conflicting claims).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 08 2018, @10:29PM (6 children)
As crazy as it seems sometimes, this is not a lottery I want to "win". I used baby powder when I was younger. My Mom used it on me too, including that pre-1976 period. I don't have lung cancer. I hope I never get it. I don't want to "win". I won't shed a tear if baby powder is off the market. There are plenty of other ways to dry off that don't leave residue or poison you. I'm glad I figured that out when I got out on my own... but I wonder what if any damage was done.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Monday April 09 2018, @07:04AM
There are plenty of other ways to dry off that don't leave residue or poison you. I'm glad I figured that out when I got out on my own... but I wonder what if any damage was done.
As someone who was a single parent in the period concerned, I dried my kids with towels, same as I dried myself. I was not fond of breathing dust, and did not see why I should
spend money on baby powder. Maybe the ads were targetting women, and I missed them?
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 1, Redundant) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @07:40AM (4 children)
Why should baby powder go off the market? We have after all no evidence of harm in these court cases.
Baby powder isn't just about "drying off". It's also about reducing skin chafing. For that, the residue helps, both in absorbing moisture (remember skin sweats), and in reducing friction.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Monday April 09 2018, @07:45PM (3 children)
You mean other than baby powder containing a known carcinogen. Not in the California sense, but in the clear and well understood danger sense. Even after 1976, the harmful component must be actively removed.
Use corn starch. Unlike talc, it doesn't naturally have asbestos in it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @07:51PM (2 children)
In other words. no evidence to support your position.
Ok, so what again is the point of your post?
Talc which has had its asbestos removed doesn't naturally have asbestos either.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 09 2018, @09:13PM (1 child)
You remind me of the Kinks. Left is right, black is white, back to front and I'm all uptight!
SHOO
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 10 2018, @04:18AM
Merely containing known carcinogens is not good enough. Lots of things contain or produce carcinogens, but we use them anyway because they're more useful than the very slight (if even measurable) risk of increased cancer that results. Let's do some risk analysis here rather than discontinuing products on remarkably pathetic grounds.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Monday April 09 2018, @02:23AM
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @02:26AM (2 children)
My wife only ever used billiard chalk for years. She always kept up with all this OTC product contamination.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday April 09 2018, @01:36PM (1 child)
What did you use?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday April 09 2018, @03:30PM
Real Men use Jack Daniel's Patented Power Powder. Baby Powder is for whimps.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"