A Reuters examination of documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public. The documents also depict successful efforts to influence U.S. regulators’ plans to limit asbestos in cosmetic talc products and scientific research on the health effects of talc. A small portion of the documents have been produced at trial and cited in media reports. Many were shielded from public view by court orders that allowed J&J to turn over thousands of documents it designated as confidential.
Read Article: Reuters
From the Texas Trial Lawyers Association news release.
J&J hid evidence of asbestos in talc products, analysis finds.
Reuters (12/14, Girion) reported on an analysis of documents released by Johnson & Johnson as part of a trial in which the company is accused of exposing plaintiffs to cancer-causing asbestos in its talc products. The analysis indicates “the earliest mentions of tainted J&J talc that Reuters found come from 1957 and 1958 reports by a consulting lab,” and “at various times from then into the early 2000s, reports by scientists at J&J, outside labs and J&J’s supplier yielded similar findings.” The FDA considered limiting asbestos in talc products in 1976, at which time J&J claimed asbestos had not been detected in its products, despite the fact “that at least three tests by three different labs from 1972 to 1975 had found asbestos in its talc – in one case at levels reported as ‘rather high.’” FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb “said the FDA planned to host a public forum in early 2019 to ‘look at how we would develop standards for evaluating any potential risk.’”
On its front page, the New York Times reported that in one document, “an executive at Johnson & Johnson said the main ingredient in its best-selling baby powder could potentially be contaminated by asbestos.” Another revealed an executive said “the company should no longer assume that its talc mines were asbestos-free.”
In a separate piece, the New York Times reported that “nearly 12,000 women have sued Johnson & Johnson, with most claiming the talc in its well-known product Johnson’s Baby Powder caused their ovarian cancer. “ The Times examined varies uses for talc in consumer products including cosmetics, food processing, surgical gloves, and condoms, until the FDA told manufacturers not to use it in the latter two in the 1990s. Meanwhile, “the American Academy of Pediatrics has taken a strong position against the use of talc on babies and children, saying it is hazardous and has no medicinal value.”
Also reporting separately, Reuters wrote “investors erased $40 billion of its market value on Friday, after Reuters revealed the U.S. healthcare giant knew for decades its baby powder was sometimes tainted by asbestos.”
The Hill reported that earlier this year, a jury awarded $4.9 billion to 22 women suing J&J, though previous lawsuits have had mixed results with some juries siding with J&J and others awarding damages to plaintiffs. Vox also covered the story.
From the news release of the American Association for Justice.
