Printable View
Did anyone read in the news about the landmark case against Johnson and Johnson? An award of £53M, surely that is going to open the flood gates for more law suits.
I read that factors known to increase the risk include age, obesity, hormone therapy, not having kids, and family history. I'm shocked at both the payout and the evidence to suggest this was the single cause.
So will this talc still be available for purchase?
I read that, what a crazy world. how much talc was she using?:confused:
Has she directly been awarded that amount of money, or is £53 Million the fine to the company? It seems a lot of money.
I saw this, and was surprised by the sums of money involved, but I did a little digging and noted there was research out there from around 2007 stating that talc causes cancer when used on 'your bits'.
There was also links to toxic effects when breathing in talc. Now if you have ever used talc, you will know there is always a cloud residue in the air. Apparently, some talc, not all contains particles of asbestos, but even the types without asbestos is considered toxic to health.
So, on this basis, if the company has not highlighted the health risks of using its product when it has been found to be toxic with long term use; then huge payouts will hopefully lead them to changing their practice.
I have to say, I think this was a relatively surprising decision. It seams that there is controversy over the Strength of the evidence and whether there was sufficient to rule in the favour of cause and effect.
From what I understand from an NHS website, there is a 33 percent risk of cancer with genital talc use. This link is strengthened if the woman is on hormone therapy.
Gynaecologists recommend using plain, un-perfumed soaps to wash the genital area every day, as opposed to talc or perfumed soaps, gels and antiseptics.
I saw that more cases are heading to court, and a third case has gone against J & J.
This may open the flood gates for other products to be scrutinised, and law suits to be filed.
I read that J&J are looking to change the court where the hearings have taken place so far in St. Louis.
So far they have paid out $195 million in 3 lawsuits with a further 2,500 similar cases being filed. While it seems a lot of money, it is worth recognises the profits being made.
J&J baby powder brought in $2 billion in revenue in 2015.
What I fail to understand, is if the use of this product is so dangerous, why is it not being banned?
The problem is not the quantity, but what was it… instead of talc. I have also read many articles, when I heard about that incident. Everyone wants to save money (even on talc...In reality talc is a neutral mineral. That's why it's being used as a baby powder. Only if it's 100% talc. This how it should be! I use talc myself in my work (I'm sugaring specialist) I breath it and hold it all the time. I never had a single problem with it, maybe because I carefully choose products.Quote:
Originally Posted by love2shop
Brittany, thank you for your post. Are you suggesting that the use of talc is not the problem, so long as it is 100% pure mineral and not bulked up with other agents?
Is is it the bulking agents that are the health risk?