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: 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.