We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A CALIFORNIA JURY has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million (about €354 million) to a woman who claimed she developed terminal ovarian cancer after using the company’s talc-based products.
The case is one of thousands of lawsuits being brought throughout the US alleging that the company failed to warn consumers of the risk of cancer from talc in its products.
The jury made the award, which included $347 million (about €295 million) in punitive damages, to Eva Echeverria after she filed suit in July of last year, a representative of the Los Angeles Superior Court told AFP.
Echeverria, 63, developed the disease after decades of using Johnson & Johnson talc-based powders for feminine hygiene, according to media reports.
Appeal
In a statement, Johnson & Johnson said it would lodge an appeal.
“We will appeal today’s verdict because we are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder,” company spokesperson Carol Goodrich said in a statement.
She cited the editorial board of the US National Cancer Institute’s Physician Data Query, which wrote in April that the “weight of evidence does not support” the existence of a link between ovarian cancer and exposure of the genital region to talc.
So far, juries in St Louis, Missouri have also awarded damages against Johnson & Johnson totalling more than $307 million (about €260 million) in similar talc cases.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
How is the product still being sold if the claims are true??
@Joan Needham: I think the formulation has changed .
@Joan Needham:
Correct usage of the product is required. There are lots of poisons and corrosives on the market but they clearly state what proper usage is.
@Joan Needham: Pubmed it. The link to ovarian cancer is weak. And if it exists at all, it’s a slight increase in risk.
@Joan Needham: I agree, but look at cigarettes, definitely cause cancer and still being sold. Crazy world.
@Joan Needham: It’s a civil case. You can be found liable for something without proving it happened, and still not be guilty of a crime, because of the lower standard of proof. See OJ Simpson
@Neal Ireland Hello.: HE may not have been found guilty but he is definitely guilty of inflicting the world with Kardasians.. Crime of the century.
@Joan Needham: Lots of things are sold that give you cancer…
If one woman gets $350 million is there any money left for other women who have or may develop cancer as a result?
@John Cotter:
J&J is worth 358 Billion
@Nick Allen: not if a thousand woman sues them….
@John Cotter: In Europe J&J would be fined. The US has no system where a state or federal body fines them, so a jury does it instead by awarding punitive damages. It is essentially a fine imposed on the company for not correcting the problem. A small percent of the overall award is for the actual damage caused to the plaintiff.
The appeal will be dragged out for as long as possible….lots of $’s for lawyers….doubt the lady will ever see any of the judgement award
It Gave me a rash on my Mickey about 2 years ago
@Anthony Brennan: could be those cheap nappies you are using.
@Anthony Brennan: Yeah right! Pull the other one!
@Brian Ward: I’d hope he only has one
Usual journal article one sided with no facts. Talc naturally contains trace amounts of asbestos but has been purified since the 70s. It’s impossible to say that it actually does without conclusive scientific study which there is none as studies relied on people remembering if and how much powder they used. I doubt very much it’s carcinogenic as it’s a product nearly all parents use on their babies at some point.
@Bhiniáimin Ó Beith: most of the award was for punitive damages, which in the US usually means they were deliberately withholding information, failed to address serious concerns and maybe fought a dirty, personal level, case … and the courts just didn’t like it.
Maybe they had advice from the Irish bar.
WHat about johnsons baby shampoo,its all i have ever used ,and no sign of a bald patch yet ,lololo
@Anthony Gallagher: No, but it’s clearly affected your brain lololo.
@Ian Walsh: Do you think i have a good case ,lolololol,do you know any good attorneys lololol
@Anthony Gallagher: Is that made from real babies or artificial babies?
@Radioska: Jelly babies i think ,lol
Does it cause piles?
@Sam Cairns: Piles of money.
This ruling was made over a year ago.
Fair play to this brave woman to take this case against Big Pharma, I hope her case is upheld….people has to start wakening up to cancer causing agents and dependency of such products not to mention the crap in vaccines been rolled out to young kids, Parents start doing your research.
@methodical2020: Seriously though, her use case was bizaar, and I hope to goodness no-one here is using it like that. Internal use of talc? It’s up there with shoving jade eggs up your wazoo.
@methodical2020: I never go near the chemists, local witch doctor much safer.
@methodical2020: I have done my research I consulted a medical doctor and he told me the vaccines have been the biggest medical advance in the past 200 years and as i rather my daughter didn’t get cancer i decided to sign her up for the vaccine, Now i presume you have done your own research on this matter so can you kindly tell us how many years you spent in medical school?
@methodical2020: You’re a danger to people who cannot be vaccinated due to underlying medical conditions. I really hope you don’t have kids.
@methodical2020: Johnson and Johnson is renowned for its corporate social responsibility. Lumping all companies in a pile together is wrong. We don’t go around suing all producers of beef in this country as a result of its cancer causing abilities. To say that this was the exact cause of the cancer is crazy, more likely one factor among many.
@BigBear321: not sure what your point is BigBear but J&J are by no means unique in this type of thing; GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi have all been hit with heavy fines for their dishonest and unethical practices..
@methodical2020: Yeah parents, shame on you for not doing your own research. It’s 2017 for chrissake, if you can’t keep up with the latest research, perform your own drug discovery, pass laboratory and clinical testing phases, gain regulatory approval, design a drug manufacturing process, and successfully bring it to market then really, you don’t deserve to even have a child.
so the case is ongoing but you cant mention Don Hickey?
Half the Irish nation was covered in this as babies.
have your say