Jump to content

Johnsons baby powder is carcinogenic ?


Ysc3
 Share

Recommended Posts

Twincharged

anything goes in the US ... esp crappy lawsuits ...

 

next will be kodomo .... then pigeon ... etc...

Edited by Ysc3
↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If everything is suspected of being carcinogenic without proper proof, then most businesses would shutdown.

 

You can't sell anything, when customers just keep pointing their sickness to your product and getting awarded millions of dollars.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Twincharged

only in US ... now another case whereby a woman is suing KFC for false advertising ....

 

she said in the poster, the fried chicken pieces were forming a mountain on top of the bucket.

 

but when she got hers, the chicken was only filled to half the bucket.

 

the amount suing for - $20 mil !!

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

only in US ... now another case whereby a woman is suing KFC for false advertising ....

 

she said in the poster, the fried chicken pieces were forming a mountain on top of the bucket.

 

but when she got hers, the chicken was only filled to half the bucket.

 

the amount suing for - $20 mil !!

That's a lot of kfc haaaaa
Link to post
Share on other sites

In all seriousness, talc has been linked with cancer

 

I noted the concerns about talc and banned my kids from using it since they were babies

 

If you keep putting fine particles around the genital areas, it is going to find its way into the body. Especially for girls - that's why the link is to ovarian cancer. The way some people use the baby powder like making cake like that

 

Btw if you research Johnson baby oil, you will find that it is a by product of refining crude oil

 

Like the comments below - why take the risk if the product is not a necessity

 

Do your own risk assessment and decide

 

 

“There’s been concerning evidence about talc — that it brings about a 30 percent increased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers — for quite a while,” Sharima Rasanayagam, director of science at the Breast Cancer Fund and head of its Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, tells Yahoo Beauty, citing a number of studies. “It’s a small increase for a rare cancer — not like smoking and lung cancer — which may be one reason people haven’t taken notice of it. But we take a precautionary approach, especially because it’s not a product you need to be using. Why increase your risk for these cancers at all?”

 

Talc — a mineral substance that’s either mined or produced industrially — is used in various cosmetic and beauty products, from baby powders to eye shadows, in order to absorb moisture, or as a softening or anti-caking agent. It can sometimes be contaminated with asbestos. And it’s why an ever-increasing panoply of talc-free powders — from the Honest Company, Burt’s Bees, Crabtree & Evelyn, and even Johnson & Johnson itself — has been become available, typically with alternative ingredients such as cornstarch, silk powders, and finely milled oats.

Edited by Aventador
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypersonic
Johnson & Johnson to pay US woman US$110m in suit linking its baby powder, shower talc to cancer

 

 

DETROIT (BLOOMBERG) - Johnson & Johnson was ordered by a St Louis jury on Thursday (May 4) to pay more than US$110 million (S$154 million) to a Virginia woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on the company's talcum products.

 

There are more than 3,000 lawsuits accusing the world's largest health-care company of ignoring studies linking its baby powder and Shower to Shower talc products to ovarian cancer and failing to warn customers about the risk.

 

The jury's verdict included US$105 million in punitive damages against J&J, a figure juror Nancy Kinney said was derived from a formula starting with the number of years since the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified talc as a possible carcinogen. That was in 2006.

 

.....

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/johnson-johnson-to-pay-us-woman-us110m-in-suit-linking-its-baby-powder

 

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypersonic

Since talc is carcinogen according to the article, that would means other brands may also be as harmful.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypersonic

Prickly heat one ok or not?

 

If not ok I will stop putting

 

inside my underwear.

 

:D

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Supersonic

Prickly heat one ok or not?

 

If not ok I will stop putting

 

inside my underwear.

 

:D

 

If you don't have ovaries, I supposed it's safe. [laugh]

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson & Johnson to pay US woman US$110m in suit linking its baby powder, shower talc to cancer

 

 

DETROIT (BLOOMBERG) - Johnson & Johnson was ordered by a St Louis jury on Thursday (May 4) to pay more than US$110 million (S$154 million) to a Virginia woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on the company's talcum products.

 

There are more than 3,000 lawsuits accusing the world's largest health-care company of ignoring studies linking its baby powder and Shower to Shower talc products to ovarian cancer and failing to warn customers about the risk.

 

The jury's verdict included US$105 million in punitive damages against J&J, a figure juror Nancy Kinney said was derived from a formula starting with the number of years since the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified talc as a possible carcinogen. That was in 2006.

 

.....

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/business/companies-markets/johnson-johnson-to-pay-us-woman-us110m-in-suit-linking-its-baby-powder

 

 

 

i was using it for many years during my young days ...  :sick:

  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypersonic

i was using it for many years during my young days ... :sick:

Yes. My parents put on my bare butt very often ...
  • Praise 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypersonic

Yes. My parents put on my bare butt very often ...

They wished for you to have a soft bottom all the way in life
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. My parents put on my bare butt very often ...

 

ah boy dont be naughty else beat your bare butt :D  

  • Praise 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

siao liao, more and more women come out to claim.

Woman wins $568m in lawsuit claiming Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder causes cancer
PUBLISHED: 10:10 AM, AUGUST 22, 2017
 
LOS ANGELES — A Los Angeles jury on Monday (Aug 21) ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a record US$417 million (S$568 million) to a hospitalised woman who claimed in a lawsuit that the talc in the company’s iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene.
 
The verdict in the lawsuit brought by the California woman, Mrs Eva Echeverria, marks the largest sum awarded in a series of talcum powder lawsuit verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in courts around the US.
 
Mrs Echeverria alleged Johnson & Johnson failed to adequately warn consumers about talcum powder’s potential cancer risks. She used the company’s baby powder on a daily basis beginning in the 1950s until 2016 and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007, according to court papers.
 
Mrs Echeverria developed ovarian cancer as a “proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder”, she said in her lawsuit.
 
Mrs Echeverria’s attorney Mark Robinson said his client is undergoing cancer treatment while hospitalised and told him she hoped the verdict would lead Johnson & Johnson to put additional warnings on its products.
 
“Mrs Echeverria is dying from this ovarian cancer and she said to me all she wanted to do was to help the other women throughout the whole country who have ovarian cancer for using Johnson & Johnson for 20 and 30 years,” Mr Robinson said.
 
“She really didn’t want sympathy,” he added. “She just wanted to get a message out to help these other women.”
 
The jury’s award included $68 million in compensatory damages and $340 million in punitive damages, Mr Robinson said. The evidence in the case included internal documents from several decades that “showed the jury that Johnson & Johnson knew about the risks of talc and ovarian cancer”, Mr Robinson said.
 
“Johnson & Johnson had many warning bells over a 30-year period but failed to warn the women who were buying its product,” he said.
 
Johnson & Johnson spokesperson Carol Goodrich said in a statement that the company will appeal the jury’s decision. She says while the company sympathises with women suffering from ovarian cancer that scientific evidence supports the safety of Johnson’s baby powder.
 
The verdict came after a St. Louis, Missouri jury in May awarded US$110.5 million to a Virginia woman who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012.
 
She had blamed her illness on her use of the company’s talcum powder-containing products for more than 40 years.
 
Besides that case, three other trials in St. Louis had similar outcomes last year, with juries awarding damages of US$72 million, US$70.1 million and US$55 million, for a combined total of US$307.6 million.
 
Another St. Louis jury in March rejected the claims of a Tennessee woman with ovarian and uterine cancer who blamed talcum powder for her cancers.
 
Two similar cases in New Jersey were thrown out by a judge who said the plaintiffs’ lawyers did not presented reliable evidence linking talc to ovarian cancer.
 
More than 1,000 other people have filed similar lawsuits. Some who won their lawsuits won much lower amounts, illustrating how juries have wide latitude in awarding monetary damages.
 
Johnson & Johnson is preparing to defend itself and its baby powder at upcoming trials in the US, Ms Goodrich said. AP

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...