Ladies, Listen Up! Record $417M award in lawsuit linking baby powder to cancer

A note from Melissa Hawks: I’m publishing this news from today to raise awareness.  My paternal grandmother used Shower to Shower daily and then died of cancer, and my maternal grandmother used talcum powder and died of uterine/ovarian cancer.  Luckily, 12 years ago when I was having my first child my pediatrician said there was a suspected link and to avoid using it with my first newborn so I stayed away for all three of my kids:

By MICHAEL BALSAMO, Associated Press
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Los Angeles jury on Monday ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a record $417 million to a hospitalized 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, Eva Echeverria, marks the largest sum awarded in a series of talcum powder lawsuit verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in courts around the U.S.

FILE – In this April 19, 2010, file photo, Johnson’s baby powder is squeezed from its container. On Monday, Aug. 21, 2017, a Los Angeles County Superior Court spokeswoman confirmed that a jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million in a case to a 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. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)

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.
Echeverria developed ovarian cancer as a “proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder,” she said in her lawsuit.
Echeverria’s attorney, Mark Robinson, said his client is undergoing cancer treatment while hospitalized 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,” 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, 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,” 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 spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement that the company will appeal the jury’s decision. She says while the company sympathizes 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 $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 $72 million, $70.1 million and $55 million, for a combined total of $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 U.S., Goodrich said.
Associated Press writer Amanda Lee Myers contributed to this report.
Follow Michael Balsamo on Twitter at .

Share This


  1. Melissa Hebbard

    I first heard about this risk at least a decade ago. Around that time J&J released a corn starch not talc based baby powder and I have been using that ever since. It feels the same as a talc powder but is not meant to be a health issue. It was actually the risk of lung problems from talc not ovarian cancer that was an early concern and led to the corn starch product but this newer product is safer for both lung and cancer risks.

  2. JoAnn

    My husband is a PhD chemist and warned me of this when our children were born – in the 1970s! It has been a known risk for many, many years. Talc is mined along with deposits of asbestos, for heaven’s sake. As mentioned, corn starch powder was and is an alternative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *