The clearest winner in the recent St. Louis jury verdict against Johnson & Johnson for the alleged role of its talc-based powder products in an Alabama woman's fatal ovarian cancer could be the talc-free powder market.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Fox passed away in October 2015 after being diagnosed in 2013 with ovarian cancer that she attributed to 35 years of using Johnson's Baby Powder and the company's formerly owned Shower to Shower powder for feminine hygiene purposes on a daily basis.

Her son, Marvin Salter, took over the case following her death and on Feb. 22 was awarded $72m in damages by a St. Louis city circuit court jury, which agreed not only that a link exists between talc and cancer, but also that J&J was aware of the risk and failed to warn consumers.

It's uncomfortable casting Fox's family as "winners" in the morbid dispute, though J&J is the undeniable loser.

On top of the $10m in actual damages and $62m in punitive damages the firm has been ordered to pay out, J&J is facing a consumer backlash on social media, with consumers vowing to stop using its iconic baby powder and questioning why it remains on the market, reading the verdict as a confirmation of talc's carcinogenicity.

J&J is messaging back, upholding the safety of talc and its commitment to consumer safety.

"With over 100 years of use, few ingredients have the same demonstrated performance, mildness and safety profile as cosmetic talc," the firm tweeted Feb. 24.

"Have questions about the safety of talc? We have the facts," it says in another same-day tweet, directing consumers to a discussion of the issue on its blog.

Fox's case is one of 60 related suits that have been consolidated in the St. Louis court. Hers was the first of those to go to trial, and according to law firm Onder, Shelton, O'Leary & Peterson, which represented the plaintiff, it could serve as "a bellwether" for other talc cases pending in Missouri and New Jersey courts.

There are 1,200 such cases in total.

The jury in the Fox case reportedly found against J&J 10-2 on claims of fraud, negligence and conspiracy, following a three-week trial and four hours of deliberation.

In a statement, J&J said: "We have no higher responsibility than the health and safety of consumers, and we are disappointed with the outcome of the trial. We sympathize with the plaintiff's family but firmly believe the safety of cosmetic talc is supported by decades of scientific evidence."

The firm says it is exploring its post-trial options.

The Fox case isn't the first talc-related suit against J&J to reach trial. In late 2013, a South Dakota jury found J&J negligent for failing to warn consumers that talc in its body powders may be linked to cancer, but no damages were awarded Also see "J&J Found Negligent In Suit Linking Talc To Cancer" - HBW Insight, 16 December, 2013..

The J&J talc suits that remain to be tried differ in their particulars and venues, which could dictate different outcomes, legal experts note.

In the court of public opinion, J&J and talc may both be guilty until proven innocent.

On J&J's Safety and Care Commitment site, a section devoted to talc attests to the ingredient's safety and provides an overview of research and clinical evidence supporting its position.

J&J notes that Johnson's Baby Powder contains only U.S. Pharmacopeial-grade talc, "which meets the highest quality, purity and compliance standards," and points out that talc is used in toothpaste, chewing gum, aspirin, antiperspirants and other consumer products beyond body powders.

According to the company, authorities including FDA and the National Toxicology Program have examined talc and concluded that the substance is not carcinogenic.

But plaintiff attorney Jim Onder says internal J&J documents submitted as evidence in the Fox case suggest that the firm has known of a link between talc and ovarian cancer and "actively undertook to hide the truth, not only from the governmental regulators but from the public."

From his perspective, the St. Louis jury's decision confirms "resoundingly" that talcum powder use for feminine hygiene purposes can cause ovarian cancer.

J&J denies allegations that it sat on compelling evidence of talc's carcinogenicity.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel assessed talc's safety in 2013, finding it safe as used at concentrations up to 100% in cosmetic products, provided it is not applied to damaged skin and that the talc is free of detectable fibrous asbestos minerals ([A#02130325008]).

FDA has focused its recent talc investigations on the potential for asbestos contamination following reports of tainted cosmetics in overseas markets Also see "FDA: No Asbestos Found In Talc Products Sampled, But Results Limited" - HBW Insight, 19 March, 2012..

Talc Fears Could Drive Alternative Purchases

J&J's Johnson's unit offers a baby powder formulated with cornstarch rather than talc, which could represent an alternative for spooked consumers. However, the cornstarch variant is reviewed less favorably online compared with the classic baby powder.

Those looking for options outside of the Johnson's brand could turn to natural and organic brands with talc-free dusting powders.

Burt's Bees and The Honest Company are among personal-care players with such offerings.

The Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep database, which scores talc a 3 (moderate hazard) on its safety scale, lists 28 body powders and six baby powders containing talc on the US market, among 3,650 talc-containing cosmetic products overall.

J&J Talc Verdict Spells Opportunity For Plaintiffs, Talc-Free Powder Market

More from Archive

More from HBW Insight