SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
Previously: The Baby Powder Trials: How Courts Deal with Inconclusive Science
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Non Sequor on Wednesday August 23 2017, @04:49PM
The key evidence is cancerous ovarian tissue samples with talc particles embedded in them. The mechanism that's posited is thought to be similar to asbestos fibers and mesothelioma.
However, unlike asbestos/mesothelioma, the link in correlation studies is weak. Regular use of talc doesn't seem to produce that much more risk of cancer making it difficult to get a statistically significant result in that kind of study. It seems that you need a large sample to statistically distinguish talc users from non-users based on their cancer rates. However, that doesn't mean that the posited mechanism is weak, just that it seems to be weak on average for the general population. Heavy talc users, users who apply it in a certain manner, or some population with anatomical differences might still be predisposed to cancer and without isolating those factors, you can't tell what's going on.
This is vaguely analogous to an issue with ignition switches in one company's cars that caused them to cut off randomly, particularly when there is a heavy keychain. The company's internal emails showed that issues with the parts at fault were identified but there was no smoking gun that it would result in an observable defect. The question of how fault should be assigned depends on your perception of what the standards for following up on potential issues in products should be.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.