Ivana Kottasova's Article on The Ovarian Crisis of Jackie Fox: How Johnson & Johnson Was Ordered to Pay $72 Million in The in Talcum Powder Cancer Case,

Introduction

The article “Johnson & Johnson told to pay $72 million in talcum powder cancer case” by Ivana Kottasova and Dani Stewart focuses on the story of Jackie Fox, who died of ovarian cancer at the age of 62. The family of the late Jackie argued that the untimely death was a result of prolonged use of talcum powder, a product of the Johnson & Johnson company. The family claimed that the company knew of the dangers and side effects of using the chemical, but it did not indicate it on the labels. However, scientists were divided over the potential of talc powder to cause cancer. The court denied the defendant a judgment and awarded the family, as plaintiffs, $72 million (Kottasova & Stewart, 2016). The article “FDA changes course on graphic warning labels for cigarettes” by Steve presents a scenario whereby a case brought to federal court by The American Cancer Society, together with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, was struck down. The issue before the federal court was to determine whether tobacco producers were supposed to adopt new warning labels or retain the old ones and make tobacco advertisements as they wished (Steve, 2013).

The Importance of Correct Warning Labels

In their article, Kottasova and Stewart (2016) focus on the necessity of having correct warning labels. The issue before the court in the article was decided in favor of the plaintiff. This implies that the defendant was found guilty of not labeling their product with appropriate warning labels. If such labels had been present, consumers might have considered using an alternative product or discontinued its use altogether. Moreover, the defendant could have had an easier time in court, as they could have provided evidence of warning labels, thus proving their innocence. The omission of these warnings highlights a critical gap in consumer protection, emphasizing the need for stringent regulations and corporate responsibility.

The Battle Over Tobacco Warning Labels

In the second article by Steve (2013), the author argues that tobacco processors are resisting the adoption of new warning labels. The introduction of new warning labels poses a threat to the tobacco-selling business, as it could potentially deter consumers. The American Cancer Society, along with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, is advocating against the use of old warning labels and pushing for the adoption of new ones. This ongoing battle underscores the tension between corporate interests and public health, illustrating the complex dynamics of regulatory policies.

Freedom of Speech and Corporate Responsibility

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it comes with inherent limitations. As product processors in the two articles—talc and tobacco—exercise their freedom of speech, they have overlooked the welfare of consumers by endangering their lives for the sake of business. This should not be the case. The article by Steve argues that the plaintiffs wanted the court to limit tobacco advertisements. This is intended to restrict the freedom of speech of tobacco sellers and protect the lives of children and adults. The balance between freedom of speech and consumer safety is delicate, requiring thoughtful consideration from policymakers.

The Role of Government and Legal Systems

The two articles address the government's ability to control and regulate corporations' warning labels through the use of courts of law. The articles recognize the courts and government agencies, like the FDA, as entities responsible for determining the appropriateness of warning labels. The court was tasked with deciding whether talc powder producers were guilty of not placing a warning label on their product. This demonstrates that through the court of law and agencies such as the FDA, the government can regulate the freedom of speech and the placement of warning labels by product producers. Therefore, the government should do everything it takes to ensure that consumable products are safe for its citizens. By enforcing regulations and upholding consumer protection standards, the government plays a crucial role in safeguarding public health.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the articles by Kottasova and Stewart (2016) and Steve (2013) highlight the critical importance of warning labels in consumer products and the ongoing legal battles over their implementation. These cases underscore the need for corporate responsibility, government regulation, and the careful balancing of freedom of speech with public safety. As society continues to grapple with these issues, it is essential for all stakeholders to work collaboratively towards solutions that prioritize consumer welfare and health.