A California jury awarded $40 million to two women on Friday, 12 December, who claimed they developed ovarian cancer after long-term use of Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder.Both California residents testified that they had used J&J's baby powder after bathing for about 40 years. They also stated that their ovarian cancer treatments required major surgeries and many rounds of chemotherapy.The healthcare giant, meanwhile, plans to appeal the jury's decision on both the liability verdict and the compensatory da ...

Core Viewpoint - The Trump administration has withdrawn a proposed FDA rule requiring testing for asbestos in talc-based cosmetics, signaling a shift in regulatory focus away from asbestos concerns [2][8]. Regulatory Changes - The proposed rule, initiated by the Biden administration, aimed to mandate manufacturers to test for asbestos in cosmetics and maintain compliance records [3][4]. - The FDA's withdrawal is attributed to the need to reconsider the best methods for addressing asbestos exposure and to develop a more comprehensive approach to cosmetics regulation [5][9]. Health Concerns - Asbestos exposure is linked to serious health issues, including lung cancer and mesothelioma, with no safe level of exposure established by health agencies [3][11]. - Consumer advocates express concern that the withdrawal of the testing requirement could lead to increased risk of asbestos contamination in cosmetics, which poses a significant health threat [11]. Industry Implications - The FDA plans to propose a new rule under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, which aims to identify safer alternatives to asbestos and reduce related illnesses [8][9]. - The current regulatory environment reflects a broader trend of rolling back protections against asbestos, contrasting with the Biden administration's previous efforts to ban its use [10]. Global Context - The U.S. remains out of step with over 50 countries that have completely banned asbestos, raising concerns about the safety of cosmetics manufactured in regions where asbestos is still permitted [10].

Core Insights - A Los Angeles jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $966 million to the family of Mae Moore, who died from mesothelioma linked to asbestos-contaminated talc exposure, marking a significant moment in public health and corporate accountability [1] - The verdict includes $16 million in compensatory damages and $950 million in punitive damages, aimed at punishing the company [3] - The case highlights ongoing racial health disparities, particularly affecting Black women, who were targeted by J&J's marketing strategies [6][7] Company Background - Johnson & Johnson began selling its Baby Powder in 1894, but safety concerns regarding talc emerged as early as the 1950s, with the first lawsuit linking talc to ovarian cancer filed in 2009 [2] - The company has faced numerous lawsuits related to its talc products, with a proposed $6.475 billion settlement to address approximately 99.75% of ovarian cancer-related lawsuits [4] Legal and Financial Implications - The Moore verdict serves as a reminder of J&J's ongoing talc liabilities, despite the company's shift towards pharmaceuticals and medical technology [9] - J&J recorded a $2.7 billion charge last year to increase its talc-related reserves to $11 billion, indicating the scale of its financial exposure [9] - The punitive damages awarded in Moore's case approach 15% of the company's talc reserve, raising concerns about the potential impact of additional verdicts on J&J's financial stability [10] Health Equity and Marketing Strategies - Internal documents revealed that J&J identified Black women in "under-developed geographical areas" as key targets for Baby Powder sales, reinforcing product loyalty in communities already facing health disparities [6] - Investigations indicated that J&J was aware of the asbestos content in its talc products for decades but continued to market them as safe, particularly in minority communities [7] Future Outlook - The Moore verdict represents not just compensation but also acknowledgment of historic harm, with J&J planning to appeal the decision, calling the award "egregious and unconstitutional" [11] - The case underscores the willingness of juries to impose significant financial penalties on J&J, even as the company seeks to resolve numerous claims through mass settlements [11]