This case has been interesting from the start, given how weak the scientific evidence was. Has anyone improved on that, proving a causal link? This settlement sounds like J&J just trying to get the witch hunt to quit bleeding them. Which I suppose describes most corporate settlements, but still.
> Johnson & Johnson executives knew for decades about the risk of asbestos exposure linked to its talc products, including the famous baby powder
> Asbestos was first linked to ovarian cancer in 1958.
> In October, Johnson & Johnson recalled 33,000 bottles of baby powder after the Food and Drug Administration said it discovered evidence of chrysotile asbestos in a bottle
There is no need to establish scientific evidence for every single decision--in this case the causal link is already there (not to mention, who would fund a long term study on this?); it's just common sense (and knowledge) to assume long-term exposure to products containing carcinogens can elevate risk of cancer. Of course these corporations would never voluntarily admit to any wrongdoings.
Given that there are distinct demographics that use this powder disproportionately (e.g. professional gymnasts and climbers), shouldn't an increased cancer rate be very visible?
The demographic that was harmed disproportionately was actually women, poor black women in the south in particular. There were campaigns that promoted talc as a way for poor women to "stay fresh" for cheap. You'd line your panties with it. It was common, and something that was often done for decades starting at a very young age. This use case is the where the link between talc exposure and ovarian cancer comes from.
