Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the chalk-up-another-win dept.

Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages to a woman who claimed to have developed ovarian cancer as a result of using J&J powder products. Baby/talcum powder contains talc, a clay mineral:

Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $417m (£323.4m) to a woman who says she developed ovarian cancer after using products such as baby powder. The California jury's decision marks the largest award yet in a string of lawsuits that claim the firm did not adequately warn about cancer risks from talc-based products.

A spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson defended the products' safety. The firm plans to appeal, as it has in previous cases. "We will appeal today's verdict because we are guided by the science," Carol Goodrich, spokesperson for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc, said in a statement.

The evidence around any link between talc use and cancer is inconclusive. Johnson & Johnson, headquartered in New Jersey, faces thousands of claims from women who say they developed cancer due to using the firm's products to address concerns about vaginal odour and moisture. Johnson & Johnson has lost four of five previous cases tried before juries in Missouri, which have led to more than $300m in penalties.

Also at NYT and CNN.

Previously: The Baby Powder Trials: How Courts Deal with Inconclusive Science


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @02:30PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @02:30PM (#558016)

    Good. I want to live in a country where it's cheaper to be honest and open than to hid information. All our resident free marketeers should agree since a key component of a functioning free market is that consumers are enabled to make informed purchasing decisions.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 23 2017, @04:50PM (1 child)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 23 2017, @04:50PM (#558073) Journal

    "[O]ur resident free marketers," and those everywhere else, are no such thing. They're sociopaths who want to be above consequences. 10 seconds of logical thought would show what's unworkable about their "free market" paradise, but that's apparently 10 seconds too much.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:41AM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday August 24 2017, @06:41AM (#558344) Journal

      They aren't even "free marketers". Those who want to selectively hide and bury information while spreading disinformation deserve a worse label. As in, propagandists and liars.

      Lying is not honest marketing. It's sad that these days, marketing is very nearly synonymous with smoke and mirrors deception. It's the proverbial used car salesperson approach to selling. The fact that marketing can be honest is near forgotten. Caveat emptor.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:38PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:38PM (#558116) Journal

    Good. I want to live in a country where it's cheaper to be honest and open than to hid information.

    In this case the system got it right, then. It would have been way cheaper to just add a warning.