US Supreme Court Snubs Johnson & Johnson Talc Lawsuit Appeal
On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court declined to hear Johnson & Johnson’s appeal challenging a $2.12 billion ruling in favour of 20 women who developed ovarian cancer which they alleged was linked to the company’s talcum powder.
The company was appealing a 2018 court ruling in favor of 22 women who alleged asbestos-contaminated talcum powder was linked to their cases of ovarian cancer. The women had said the company did not provide adequate warning of the risks associated with using their products. The initial settlement amount had initially been over $4 billion before being cut down.
The judge in that case ruled Johnson & Johnson had “misrepresented the safety of these products for decades” and the evidence shown at the trial demonstrated “particularly reprehensible conduct on the part of Defendants.”
Johnsons & Johnson has dominated the talcum powder market for over a century.
While there is no established link between talcum powder exposure and cancer, but talcum powder is often mined close to asbestos, a known carcinogen for which there is no safe level of exposure, and which can have a long latency period between exposure and cancer development.
Some studies have shown an increase in lung cancer risk for miners working underground when exposed to raw talc, which can be contaminated with asbestos, while others have found no effect. Use of talcum powder in the genital or perineal area is thought to contribute to ovarian cancer risk, but results are also mixed.
Companies have been directed not to use asbestos in cosmetic products since the 1970s, according to the American Cancer Society. According to the National Cancer Institute, “the weight of evidence does not support an association between perineal talc exposure and an increased risk of ovarian cancer.”
A 2018 investigation by Reuters uncovered documents showing that Johnson & Johnson was not only aware of the asbestos contamination problem, the company covered it up. It even tried to influence US regulatory policy over asbestos in cosmetic products. Lawyers representing the company have argued in court that the tests were unreliable, although recent independent lab tests of samples obtained from various time periods detected asbestos contamination.
In response to queries from Reuters, Johnson & Johnson’s outside litigation counsel Peter Bicks wrote: “The scientific consensus is that the talc used in talc-based body powders does not cause cancer, regardless of what is in that talc. This is true even if – and it does not – Johnson & Johnson’s cosmetic talc had ever contained minute, undetectable amounts of asbestos.”
Source: Forbes
