Risk of Ovarian Cancer from Johnson’s Baby Powder, Other Talc Products Was Subject of U.S. House Subcommittee Hearing

Amid continuing concerns about the risk of cancer associated with Johnson’s Baby Powder, Shower-to-Shower and other talc-based products, a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee held a hearing Tuesday, involved testimony from experts and a review of what regulatory power the federal government has to protect consumers.

The hearing was held by the House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, which looked at the public health risks of carcinogens in consumer products; focusing mainly on talcum powder and reports of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

The testimony was heard only days after the FDA issued an advisory, calling for consumers to stop using certain Claireโ€™s cosmetic products, which tested positive for asbestos. However, it also comes following years of concerns over Johnson & Johnsonโ€™s talcum powder products, which have been linked to an increased risk of ovarian cancer when applied to womenโ€™s genitals for feminine hygiene.

|
|

Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, the subcommittee chairman, noted that the FDA is nearly powerless to prevent these products from going onto store shelves, even when the threat to public health is confirmed, as it was with the Claireโ€™s cosmetics products. There are more than 2,000 talc-containing products on the market, he noted.

โ€œThe FDA cannot order any manufacturers to recall these personal care or cosmetics products that potentially contain asbestos,โ€ he said in his opening statement. โ€œThe question is why? Because a loophole in the statute that empowers the FDA to regulate personal care products and cosmetics does not allow the FDA to require necessary recalls.โ€

The Claireโ€™s cosmetics recall announced the day of the hearing impacted three products, including Claire’s Eyeshadows, UPC #888711847165, SKU #84716, Lot No. 08/17; Claire’s Compact Powder, UPC #888711839153, SKU #83915, Lot No. 07/15; and Claire’s Contour Palette, UPC #888711401947, SKU #40194, Lot No. 04/17. However, the manufacturer continues to defend the safety of the products.

Krishnamoorthi warned that FDA authority over cosmetics generally remains weak, and that in many places compliance with FDA regulations are voluntary for the cosmetics industry. He called on lawmakers to review and potentially increase the agencyโ€™s regulatory power over the cosmetics industry.

The hearing included testimony from Dr. Anne McTiernan, a cancer prevention researcher from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington. She conducted a systematic review of talcum powder products and their risks of ovarian cancer and is an expert witness for plaintiffs in thousands of Johnsonโ€™s Baby Powder lawsuitsย andย Shower-to-Shower lawsuits filed by women nationwide, who allege that Johnson & Johnson has withheld information about the potential cancer risk for decades.

โ€œSummarizing data from all of the published studies consistently shows that women who had ever used talcum powder products in the genital area had a statistically significant 22 – 31% increased risk of developing epithelial ovarian cancer compared with women who had never used them,โ€ she said in her testimony (PDF). โ€œThese combined analyses showed that increasing amount of exposure to talcum powder products in the genital area resulted in increasing risk of developing epithelial ovarian cancer.โ€

The committee also raised questions about whether Johnson & Johnson targeted minorities for the sale of talcum powder based on racist stereotypes, and pointed out that juries are taking action against the company where the FDA is not, by levying millions, and sometimes billions, of dollars in product liability verdicts that often include punitive damages meant to punish the company for recklessly endangering womenโ€™s health.

Talcum Powder Cancer Litigation

Johnson & Johnson currently faces nearly 12,000ย product liability lawsuits filed on behalf of consumers left with ovarian cancer or mesothelioma, each involving similar allegations that the manufacturer has failed to warn consumers cancer risks from Johnson’s Baby Powder, Shower-to-Shower or other talc-based products.

Last year, a trial involving 22 different women diagnosed with ovarian cancer resulted in a landmarkย $4.7 billion verdict awarded in Missouri state court, which the company is currently appealing.

In May 2018, a California juryย ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $25.7 millionย in a talc mesothelioma case. In April 2018, a New Jersey juryย awarded $117 millionย to a man diagnosed with mesothelioma due to exposure from talcum powder, which included $80 million in punitive damages.

In December 2017, aย talc powder case went to trialย in California, resulted in a jury award of $17.57 million in compensatory damages and $4.6 million in punitive damages, for the family of man who died of mesothelioma in 2016, after years of exposure to talc.

While Johnson & Johnson is pursuing appeals in each of the cases that resulted in a verdict, and is refusing to negotiateย talcum powder settlements, some analysts have suggested that the verdicts are a sign thatย juries find Johnson & Johnsonโ€™s trial defense lacking in credibility.

Irvin Jackson
Written by: Irvin Jackson

Senior Legal Journalist & Contributing Editor

Irvin Jackson is a senior investigative reporter at AboutLawsuits.com with more than 30 years of experience covering mass tort litigation, environmental policy, and consumer safety. He previously served as Associate Editor at Inside the EPA and contributes original reporting on product liability lawsuits, regulatory failures, and nationwide litigation trends.




0 Comments


This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Share Your Comments

This field is hidden when viewing the form
I authorize the above comments be posted on this page
Post Comment
Weekly Digest Opt-In

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

MORE TOP STORIES

A spinal cord stimulator lawsuit claims that the Abbott Proclaim XR 5 system failed to treat a manโ€™s chronic pain, instead leaving him with shocks and burning sensations.
A Suboxone dental erosion lawsuit filed by nine plaintiffs accuses the manufacturer of knowing the film strips caused severe tooth decay and other oral health problems, but failed to warn the medical community or patients.