If you were to take a look at almost any medicine cabinet or nursery across the country, you would likely find a bottle of talcum powder. What you may not realize, and most people had no idea, is that baby powder may hold a unseen threat.
On February 22, Circuit Court jurors in St. Louis Missouri reached a verdict in favor of Jacqueline Fox, who was a regular user of baby powder and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. They awarded $72 million in damages due to “fraud, negligence and conspiracy.” Unfortunately, Fox died from the cancer before the verdict was handed down.
Fox, who lived in Birmingham, Alabama, used baby powder along with Shower to Shower for over 35 years. She was diagnosed with cancer in 2013. Following her death in October, 2015, her son took over as the plaintiff in this case. After a 3 week trial and a jury that deliberated for 4 hours, the jury ruled in Fox’s favor. $10 million was being awarded to her family and $62 million was given in punitive damages.
Johnson & Johnson baby powder went on the market in 1894 and since that time, it has been practically synonymous with skincare. Most people use baby powder on a daily basis as part of their general hygine. It is even used on babies for diaper rash and the products, including the baby powder and Shower to Shower have been marketed as pure and clean products for decades.
Despite the fact that the products have a reputation of being a harmless and perhaps even healthy, there are in the neighborhood of 700 lawsuits against the company. The majority of those lawsuits are in the area of St. Louis and in New Jersey, near the headquarters of Johnson & Johnson. The majority of those cases are due to ovarian cancer and as new cases emerge, new lawsuits are filed.
Part of the controversy is due to a lack of warning labels on the talc based products. Studies and reports that were published as early as the 1980s were warning of the potential adverse effects of these common household items.
Krista Smith, the jury foreman in the Fox trial, referred to internal documents from Johnson & Johnson, stating the following:
“It was really clear they were hiding something. All they had to do was put a warning label on.”
As could be expected, a spokeswoman from Johnson & Johnson had the following to say:
“We have no higher responsibility than the health and safety of consumers, and we are disappointed with the outcome of the trial. We sympathize with the plaintiff’s family but firmly believe the safety of cosmetic talc is supported by decades of scientific evidence.”
Johnson & Johnson is expected to appeal the verdict. The possibility that the $72 million award will survive the appeal has yet to be seen. According to a Stanford University law professor, the US Supreme Court has maintained that lower courts clampdown on punitive damages. But with other lawsuits pending, it doesn’t look good for Johnson & Johnson.
“This case clearly was a bellwether, and clearly the jury has seen the evidence and found it compelling.”