J&J vows to appeal $70m ‘baby powder’ verdict

The case is said to be about “sympathy and science.” It might also be about marketing to vulnerable populations.

A jury in St. Louis took just three hours in determining that a woman’s decades-long use of baby powder for feminine hygiene led to her cancer diagnosis. The award to the plaintiff was $70 million.

Thursday’s verdict arrived quickly, as did the response from Johnson and Johnson’s corporate communications office. In a statement on the company website, Carol Goodrich, spokesperson for J&J’s Consumer Division, said:

“We deeply sympathize with the women and families impacted by ovarian cancer. We will appeal today’s verdict because we are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder. In fact, two cases pending in New Jersey were dismissed in September 2016 by a state court judge who ruled that plaintiffs’ scientific experts could not adequately support their theories that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer, a decision that highlights the lack of credible scientific evidence behind plaintiffs’ allegations.”

The iconic brand’s headquarters are in New Brunswick, New Jersey. NJ.com reported:

Much research has found no link or a weak one between ovarian cancer and using baby powder for feminine hygiene, and most major health groups have declared talc harmless. Johnson & Johnson, whose baby powder dominates the market, maintains it's perfectly safe.

But [attorney] Jim Onder of the Onder Law Firm…cited other research that began connecting talcum powder to ovarian cancer in the 1970s. He said case studies have indicated that women who regularly use talc on their genital area face up to a 40 percent higher risk of developing ovarian cancer.

[RELATED: Learn to produce newscast-ready video and B-roll that media notice and fans share.]

In an interview with the Associated Press, Onder “accused Johnson & Johnson of marketing toward overweight women, blacks and Hispanics — the very same women most at risk for ovarian cancer.”

The AP reported:

Factors known to increase a women's risk of ovarian cancer include age, obesity, use of estrogen therapy after menopause, not having any children, certain genetic mutations and personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer.

"We are pleased the jury did the right thing. They once again reaffirmed the need for Johnson & Johnson to warn the public of the ovarian cancer risk associated with its product," Onder said.

There were numerous comments on the NJ.com website, including a few about marketing:

IBTimes had a brief comment from a juror:

“It seemed like Johnson & Johnson didn’t pay attention,” one juror, Billie Ray, 76, of St. Louis, reportedly said, adding that a warning label should have been placed on talc containers to let consumers know about the risks. “It seemed like they didn’t care.”

J&J’s website, meanwhile, has several pages and resources addressing concerns about talc.



“The Facts About Talc” section seems geared toward women:

With all the types of information we use to make products, there is no information more important than our research on scientific data and safety. We go beyond the findings of a single study because we must ensure we’ve assembled all of the available data from multiple scientific areas to reach conclusions based on evidence. One opinion or study can’t outweigh decades of conclusive, scientific, evidence-based findings. As a scientist and, equally important, as a parent myself, I can tell you the science is clear: Cosmetic talc is, and has been, safe for use in consumer products.

We are all mothers, fathers, and consumers ourselves; we understand and take seriously our responsibility to give you the information you need to make your own decisions. We created this site to help you find the facts about talc more easily.

Nearly 2,000 similar cases against J&J are pending.

(Image via)

from PR Daily News Feed http://ift.tt/2dXhsoV