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
Related Stories
A jury recently awarded $70 million to a California woman who used Johnson & Johnson's talc-based baby powder and claimed that it caused her ovarian cancer. Two lawsuits from earlier this year awarded a combined $127 million, and thousands of other women have filed suits against Johnson & Johnson. Meanwhile, two other lawsuits in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said the scientific evidence wasn't reliable enough to establish a clear cancer link. All these cases follow on an original 2013 jury finding for physician's assistant Deane Berg, which paradoxically found that baby powder could have been a factor in her cancer yet awarded her zero damages.
While these real-world juries have been forced to make decisions on whether a substance causes cancer, the metaphorical scientific "jury is still out." The American Cancer Society's review of the evidence notes:
Findings have been mixed, with some studies reporting a slightly increased risk and some reporting no increase. Many case-control studies have found a small increase in risk. But these types of studies can be biased because they often rely on a person's memory of talc use many years earlier. Two prospective cohort studies, which would not have the same type of potential bias, have not found an increased risk.
The ACS concludes that "if there is an increased risk, the overall increase is likely to be very small." Most other cancer researchers seem to take a similarly measured approach in characterizing the current state of the evidence, such as these guidelines from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute:
"All of these studies suffer from incomplete data on patients' family history of ovarian or breast cancer, as well as the duration and frequency of powder use, says Panos Konstantinopoulos, MD, PhD, of the Gynecologic Oncology Program in the Susan F. Smith Center for Women's Cancers at Dana-Farber. "In general, population-based studies have shown a statistically significant association with ovarian cancer risk, while hospital-based studies showed that this association is not statistically significant," he says. In addition, none of the studies found that risk rose with increased exposure to the powder, and there is no evidence that talcum powder use on other parts of the body affects ovarian cancer risk.
[Continues...]
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
A California judge has thrown out a $417 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson. The plaintiff claimed that she developed ovarian cancer after using J&J's talc-based products:
The ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson marked the latest setback facing women and family members who accuse J&J of not adequately warning consumers about the cancer risks of its talc-based products. The decision followed a jury's decision in August to hit J&J with the largest verdict to date in the litigation, awarding California resident Eva Echeverria $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages.
Nelson on Friday reversed the jury verdict and granted J&J's request for a new trial. Nelson said the August trial was underpinned by errors and insufficient evidence on both sides, culminating in excessive damages.
Mark Robinson, who represented the woman in her lawsuit, in a statement said he would file an appeal immediately. "We will continue to fight on behalf of all women who have been impacted by this dangerous product," he said.
Previously: The Baby Powder Trials: How Courts Deal with Inconclusive Science
Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $417m in Latest Talc Cancer Case
Johnson & Johnson's stock slammed after report it knew of asbestos in baby powder
Shares of Johnson & Johnson tumbled Friday, after a Reuters report that the drug and consumer-products company knew for decades that its baby talcum powder was contaminated with asbestos, a known carcinogen, that is alleged to have caused cancer in thousands of its customers.
The stock ended 10% lower on Friday, marking its largest one-day percentage decline in 16 years and lowest close in nearly four months, according to FactSet data. It led decliners on the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 on the day, and accounted for about 101 points of the Dow's 497-point loss.
[...] Reuters said an examination of internal company memos and other documents found the New Jersey–based company was aware of the presence of small amounts of asbestos in its products from as early as 1971 but failed to disclose that fact to regulators or to the general public.
Reuters stands by J&J report, says it was based 'entirely' on Johnson & Johnson documents
Reuters reporter Lisa Girion stands by her report that Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that asbestos was in its baby powder. "Our report on the fact that J&J was aware of small amounts of asbestos in its talc, in its baby power, in the ore that it mined in Vermont to make baby power, is based entirely on their documents," Girion told CNBC's "Power Lunch" on Friday.
The Reuters story sent J&J shares down 9 percent on Friday and prompted a response from the health-care company that called the article "one-sided, false and inflammatory." "Simply put, the Reuters story is an absurd conspiracy theory, in that it apparently has spanned over 40 years, orchestrated among generations of global regulators, the world's foremost scientists and universities, leading independent labs, and J&J employees themselves," the company said in a statement.
See also: Asbestos Opens New Legal Front in Battle Over Johnson's Baby Powder
Those J&J Baby-Powder Lawsuits Aren't Going Away
Johnson & Johnson loses $39.8 billion in market value in one day after report claims it knew about asbestos in its 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
Johnson & Johnson Loses New Jersey Talc Cancer Case
(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"