Plaintiff Lois Slemp, a 62-year-old resident of St. Louis, alleged that she used J&J's baby powder and Shower-to-Shower talc products for almost four decades before she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012.
That verdict broke a three-trial winning streak by plaintiffs that began with a verdict in February 2016 in which a jury awarded $72 million to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer. A company lawyer told jurors that J&J's products didn't cause Slemp's cancer and don't contain asbestos.
Baby powder and talc have been the cause of many lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson.
FILE - In this April 15, 2011, file photo, a bottle of Johnson's baby powder is displayed in San Francisco.
Based on the results of several studies, even if talcum powder increases the risk of ovarian cancer, it will only increase the risk by a third and since ovarian cancer is a rare disease, it will affect even fewer women. Another jury says yes. The payment is the biggest so far from some 2,400 lawsuits that stand, of have been heard, against Johnson & Johnson in relation to its talc-based products.
J&J's stock barely budged in pre-market trading in the USA on Friday, falling 0.1 per cent to US$123.87. However, most major health groups have declared the product harmless in more recent years.
ALSO READ: Fighting cancer?
Talcum powder is a finely ground powder from talc minerals, which are mined all over the globe. The studies showed that woman who used the products had a greater risk of being diagnosed with cancer.
Like many questions in science, there is no definitive answer and finding the cause of cancer is hard. Finding the cause of cancer is hard.
Even after this latest verdict, Johnson & Johnson refuses to admit that their talc-based products are unsafe to women, and they plan to appeal the decision.
However, that doesn't mean talc causes cancer. Because of this fact, J&J has been attempting to move talc lawsuits out of the state.
If there were a true link, Dr.
The company issued a statement to Reuters after the verdict: "We have no higher responsibility than the health and safety of consumers, and we are disappointed with the outcome of the trial".
The National Cancer Institute's Dr Nicolas Wentzensen added the federal agency's position is that there's not a clear connection.