Talcum Powder Lawsuit Update

Talcum Powder Lawsuit News: ‘An Existing Public Health Crisis’ J&J, Dozens Of Others Sued For Alleged Failure To Warn Of Talc Cancer Risk

February 4, 2020
Author: Daniel Gala

An individual plaintiff has sued Johnson & Johnson and dozens of other corporate defendants, including manufacturers and retailers, alleging that the companies have violated California state law by failing to disclose to consumers the risk of cancer associated with the talcum-powder products they produce and/or sell.  

The  lawsuit, filed Wednesday, January 29 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeks civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation of California’s Proposition 65, which requires suppliers and distributors to warn consumers when products pose a known cancer risk. The complaint, also seeks “such temporary injunctions, preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions, or other orders, as Plaintiffs shall specify in further application to the court.”  

“Talcum powder has been touted and promoted for decades by companies claiming that it helps eliminate friction, is gentle on the skin, and provides a clean, pleasant scent,” the lawsuit alleges. “It commonly has been marketed to unsuspecting mothers for prevention and reduction of babies’ diaper rashes and for use by women as a feminine hygiene product.”  

The suit continues: “Tragically, a growing body of evidence has now established that using talc in the genital area can contribute to or cause ovarian cancer. Medical researchers have raised concerns about the safety of talcum powder for many years, and the link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer is now well documented.”  

In addition to Johnson & Johnson, which faces roughly 17,000 active lawsuits over allegations that its talcum powder products cause ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, the lawsuit’s named defendants include a number of other national household names.     

“This case is brought against the major nationwide suppliers and distributors of talcum powder products in order to address an existing public health crisis arising from the sale of products that contain multiple carcinogenic and reproductive toxins,” the lawsuit says. “The products at issue involve nationwide retail brands, such as Johnson’s Baby, Gold Bond, and Shower to Shower. They also include private label brands distributed and sold at large nationwide retailers, including CVS, Dollar General, Target, Walgreens, and Walmart.”  

The suit accuses the companies of violating California’s Proposition 65, which “required businesses to provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm…By requiring that this information be provided, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about their exposures to these chemicals.”  

The lawsuit further alleges that the “named Defendants have willfully violated Proposition 65 by manufacturing, distributing, and selling products with excess levels of dangerous chemicals.”  

“Defendants have for decades manufactured, distributed, or sold talcum powder products that contain multiple chemicals at levels known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity,” the lawsuit claims. “The carcinogenic chemicals and reproductive toxins at issue include (1) arsenic (inorganic oxides); (2) chromium (hexavalent compounds); and (3) lead and lead compounds. The chemicals are listed Proposition 65 chemicals known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.”  

Notably absent from the list is the highly dangerous substance asbestos, which has been at the heart of much of the talc-cancer litigation that has taken place to date. In October 2019, the  United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that a lab it had hired to test Johnson’s Baby Powder had detected asbestos fibers in a 22-ounce bottle purchased online. While continuing to defend the safety of its talcum-powder products, J&J subsequently issued a voluntary recall of approximately 33,000 bottles of baby powder.  

“During talc mining, if talc mining sites are not selected carefully and steps are not taken to purify the talc ore sufficiently, the talc may be contaminated with asbestos,” the FDA announcement explained.  

The absence of asbestos from the lawsuit is particularly notable because asbestos does appear on the State of California Environmental Protection Agency’s list of “Chemicals Known To The State To Cause Cancer Or Reproductive Toxicity,” having been added in February 1987. One possible explanation is that the attorneys bringing the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff felt that they possessed stronger evidence for their claims as they pertain to the other substances. Another is that they did not want to get embroiled in the fierce ongoing legal and scientific debate over the presence of asbestos in talc, choosing to limit their claims to the other listed materials.  

Allegations Of A Cover-Up  

The new Proposition 65 lawsuit goes beyond simply accusing the company’s of failing to adequately warn consumers, going so far as to accuse the defendants of actively concealing information about the carcinogenic potential of talc products.  

“For many years, the [talc] Industry has taken concerted action to conceal and hide the presence of carcinogenic and reproductive toxins in talcum powder products from consumers and the general public,” the lawsuit alleges. “Such actions date back at least to 1976 when the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (‘CTFA’) issued so-called ‘purity standards’ for talc used in cosmetic products.”  

Rather than help ensure consumer safety, these industry standards instead “were designed to hide the presence of carcinogenic and reproductive toxins in talcum powder products,” the complaint argues. “The Industry redefined ‘talc’ to consist of a minimum of 90% talc with the remainder ‘consisting of naturally associated materials.’…Unbeknownst to consumers, the Industry specification for ‘talc’ expressly includes arsenic (up to 3 ppm) and lead (up to 20 ppm)…Other ‘naturally associated minerals’ found in talcum powder products include hexavalent chromium.” (Emphasis in original.)  

“By including these carcinogens and reproductive toxins in the specification for ‘talc,’ the Industry has misleadingly marketed talcum powder products as containing pure talc and has actively and knowingly taken steps to conceal the presence of Listed Chemicals from consumers,” the suit claims. “The Industry has done so with a profiteering motive, knowing that full disclosure would lead to significant loss in sales and, even more likely, the removal of talcum powder products from the market.”  

Conclusion  

The new lawsuit filed under California’s Proposition 65 shows that litigation over allegations that talc-based products contain cancer-causing substances is far from over, with the scope of such legal actions continuing to expand to include additional products and defendants, including retailers and distributors. With nearly 17,000 individual talc-cancer cases against Johnson & Johnson having been centralized as multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the District of New Jersey, talc-cancer litigation likely will be with us for years to come, as plaintiffs continue to seek justice.    

  Sources:

California Superior Court County of Los  Angeles. (Filed 29 January 2019). Complaint and Demand For Jury Trial. Jan Graham vs. Bausch Health Companies, Inc. et al

 United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (18 October 2019). Baby powder manufacturer voluntarily recalls products or asbestos. FDA News Release. Press Announcements

State of California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. (Updated 3 January 2020). Chemicals Known To The State To Cause Cancer Or Reproductive Toxicity