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).