Johnson & Johnson knew of carcinogen in baby powder since 1971
Roni Caryn Rabin | NYT News Service | Updated: Dec 16, 2018, 07:51 IST
The memos were concise and direct. An executive at Johnson & Johnson said the main ingredient in its best-selling baby powder could potentially be contaminated by asbestos, the dangerous mineral that can cause cancer. He recommended to senior staff in 1971 that the company "upgrade" its quality control of talc.
Two years later, another executive raised a red flag, saying the company should no longer assume that its talc mines were asbestos-free. The powder, he said, sometimes contained materials that "might be classified as asbestos fiber".
The carcinogen, which often appears underground near talc, has been a concern inside the company for decades. In hundreds of pages of memos, executives worried about a potential government ban of talc, the safety of the product and a public backlash over Johnson's Baby Powder, a brand built on a reputation for trustworthiness and health.
Executives proposed new testing procedures or replacing talc outright, while trying to discredit research suggesting that the powder could be contaminated with asbestos, according to corporate documents unearthed by litigation, government records and interviews with scientists and lawyers.
In one instance, J&J demanded the government block unfavourable findings from being made public. An executive ultimately won assurances from an official at the Food and Drug Administration that the findings would be issued only "over my dead body," a memo summarising the meeting said.
Those efforts are now forming the crux of a new legal front in a long-running battle over Johnson's Baby Powder, potentially leaving the company exposed in nearly 12,000 lawsuits across the US claiming that the product can cause cancer.
This summer, 22 women with ovarian cancer successfully sued the company, arguing that J&J knew about the connection between talc and asbestos. A jury in St Louis, Missouri, awarded them $4.69 billion, one of the largest personal injury verdicts ever.
The company lost two other cases this year, in California and New Jersey, brought by people with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of internal organs that is associated with asbestos.
Johnson & Johnson is appealing the three asbestos-related cases. The firm has won three cases related to mesothelioma, while four others were declared mistrials. J&J has said it will appeal the recent verdicts against it. It has maintained in public statements that its talc is safe, as shown for years by the best tests available, and that the information it has been required to divulge in recent litigation shows the care the company takes to ensure its products are asbestos-free. It has blamed its losses on juror confusion, "junk" science, unfair court rules and overzealous lawyers looking for a fresh pool of asbestos plaintiffs.
"Plaintiffs' attorneys out for personal financial gain are distorting historical documents and intentionally creating confusion in the courtroom and in the media," Ernie Knewitz, J&J's vice-president of global media relations, wrote in an emailed response to Reuters' findings. "This is all a calculated attempt to distract from the fact that thousands of independent tests prove our talc does not contain asbestos or cause cancer. Any suggestion that Johnson & Johnson knew or hid information about the safety of talc is false." The company declined to comment further
After the Missouri trial, Michael J Miller, a lawyerinvolved in the talc litigation, said more plaintiffs lawyers were considering whether their clients' ovarian cancer was linked to asbestos.
"We knew for years that there was something about the talc that caused ovarian cancer, and there had been rumors about asbestos, but we were really being stonewalled by Johnson & Johnson about the documents we needed," he said. "The trial in St Louis was very instructive, very informative.
Miller's firm represents 900 plaintiffs who have blamed their ovarian cancer on long-term use of Johnson's Baby Powder. He expects his first trial in early 2020.
"We're all eager to get to trial," he said.
Two years later, another executive raised a red flag, saying the company should no longer assume that its talc mines were asbestos-free. The powder, he said, sometimes contained materials that "might be classified as asbestos fiber".
The carcinogen, which often appears underground near talc, has been a concern inside the company for decades. In hundreds of pages of memos, executives worried about a potential government ban of talc, the safety of the product and a public backlash over Johnson's Baby Powder, a brand built on a reputation for trustworthiness and health.
Executives proposed new testing procedures or replacing talc outright, while trying to discredit research suggesting that the powder could be contaminated with asbestos, according to corporate documents unearthed by litigation, government records and interviews with scientists and lawyers.
In one instance, J&J demanded the government block unfavourable findings from being made public. An executive ultimately won assurances from an official at the Food and Drug Administration that the findings would be issued only "over my dead body," a memo summarising the meeting said.
Those efforts are now forming the crux of a new legal front in a long-running battle over Johnson's Baby Powder, potentially leaving the company exposed in nearly 12,000 lawsuits across the US claiming that the product can cause cancer.
This summer, 22 women with ovarian cancer successfully sued the company, arguing that J&J knew about the connection between talc and asbestos. A jury in St Louis, Missouri, awarded them $4.69 billion, one of the largest personal injury verdicts ever.
The company lost two other cases this year, in California and New Jersey, brought by people with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of internal organs that is associated with asbestos.
Johnson & Johnson is appealing the three asbestos-related cases. The firm has won three cases related to mesothelioma, while four others were declared mistrials. J&J has said it will appeal the recent verdicts against it. It has maintained in public statements that its talc is safe, as shown for years by the best tests available, and that the information it has been required to divulge in recent litigation shows the care the company takes to ensure its products are asbestos-free. It has blamed its losses on juror confusion, "junk" science, unfair court rules and overzealous lawyers looking for a fresh pool of asbestos plaintiffs.
"Plaintiffs' attorneys out for personal financial gain are distorting historical documents and intentionally creating confusion in the courtroom and in the media," Ernie Knewitz, J&J's vice-president of global media relations, wrote in an emailed response to Reuters' findings. "This is all a calculated attempt to distract from the fact that thousands of independent tests prove our talc does not contain asbestos or cause cancer. Any suggestion that Johnson & Johnson knew or hid information about the safety of talc is false." The company declined to comment further
After the Missouri trial, Michael J Miller, a lawyerinvolved in the talc litigation, said more plaintiffs lawyers were considering whether their clients' ovarian cancer was linked to asbestos.
"We knew for years that there was something about the talc that caused ovarian cancer, and there had been rumors about asbestos, but we were really being stonewalled by Johnson & Johnson about the documents we needed," he said. "The trial in St Louis was very instructive, very informative.
Miller's firm represents 900 plaintiffs who have blamed their ovarian cancer on long-term use of Johnson's Baby Powder. He expects his first trial in early 2020.
"We're all eager to get to trial," he said.
Download The Times of India News App for Latest Business News.
All Comments ()+^ Back to Top
Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.
HIDE