About the author

Myron Levin is editor of FairWarning.

4 comments to “Johnson & Johnson Dealt $72 Million Courtroom Loss in Talc-Ovarian Cancer Case”

  1. Douglas Baldwin

    Interesting article, thank you. I also like Mabewy’s comments, and have powdered myself in sensitive areas often. The jury hammered J&J which makes me curious about the evidence. The initial phases of these battles are so mysterious to the consumer/reader. Often enough, the product turns out to have serious problems, and also, that it doesn’t. I was an investigator on breast implant litigations, which achieved a final tremendous multi billion nationwide settlement of claims that they caused life altering injuries and diseases. And then what happened? Breast implants are more popular than ever. My opinion is that early product had poor quality materials, but in time, the science of it improved. Still, it wasn’t like some stamp of approval was put on the product, but exactly the opposite, I am not aware of any announcement that the culprit ingredient had been determined and excised from the product, but after the huge settlement it flourished again. My point is this, J&J has a product in talc that consumers like and want, but they need to embrace concerns and put them to rest one way or the other in order to move on.

  2. Tom Fox

    I used baby powder in my genital area fot over 30 years to control sweat and have had to have a rest iCal removed due to cancer. I never smoked, never did drugs and eat very heath foods. What about us men? Why can woman sue for genital cancer and we can’t !

  3. Canesha

    I am sorry for the woman who lost her life as well as her family! It sickens me to learn that hygiene products created by mass production increases death rate by 35 percent. Imagine how many people have used this product, which causes ovarian cancer, along with other J&J products. How many years have you, your children and families have use these dreadful pesticides,smmfh

  4. Matthew Mabewy

    Thank you for providing the entire letter from the consultant. It is important to note that the consultant was critiquing statements written by a trade association, not statements written by Johnson & Johnson. While his comparison with the tobacco industry is dramatic, I don’t think it passes the sniff test. Rather than a comparison of tobacco smoking and lung diseases, it is more like tobacco smoking and pancreatic cancer. The casual connection between smoking and lungs is clear. The casual connection with the pancreas isn’t clear, just as the connection between the topical use of talcum powder and ovarian cancer isn’t clear (if the connection turns out to be real).

Leave a comment