Johnson & Johnson Knew About Asbestos In Child Powder, Did not Report To FDA

LOS ANGELES, Dec 14 (Reuters) – Darlene Coker knew she was dying. She simply wished to know why.

She knew that her most cancers, mesothelioma, arose within the delicate membrane surrounding her lungs and different organs. She knew it was as uncommon because it was lethal, a signature of publicity to asbestos. And she or he knew it largely males who inhaled asbestos mud in mines and industries corresponding to shipbuilding that used the carcinogen earlier than its dangers have been understood.

Coker, 52 years outdated, had raised two daughters and was operating a therapeutic massage college in Lumberton, a small city in japanese Texas. How had she been uncovered to asbestos? “She wished solutions,” her daughter Cady Evans stated.

Preventing for each breath and in crippling ache, Coker employed Herschel Hobson, a personal-injury lawyer. He homed in on a suspect: the Johnson’s Child Powder that Coker had used on her toddler kids and sprinkled on herself all her life. Hobson knew that talc and asbestos usually occurred collectively within the earth, and that mined talc may very well be contaminated with the carcinogen. Coker sued Johnson & Johnson, alleging that “toxic talc” within the firm’s beloved product was her killer.

J&J denied the declare. Child Powder was asbestos-free, it stated. Because the case proceeded, J&J was capable of keep away from handing over talc check outcomes and different inner firm data Hobson had requested to make the case in opposition to Child Powder.

Coker had no selection however to drop her lawsuit, Hobson stated. “If you find yourself the plaintiff, you will have the burden of proof,” he stated. “We didn’t have it.”

That was in 1999. 20 years later, the fabric Coker and her lawyer sought is rising as J&J has been compelled to share 1000’s of pages of firm memos, inner reviews and different confidential paperwork with legal professionals for a few of the 11,700 plaintiffs now claiming that the corporate’s talc prompted their cancers — together with 1000’s of girls with ovarian most cancers.

A Reuters examination of a lot of these paperwork, in addition to deposition and trial testimony, reveals that from no less than 1971 to the early 2000s, the corporate’s uncooked talc and completed powders typically examined optimistic for small quantities of asbestos, and that firm executives, mine managers, scientists, medical doctors and legal professionals fretted over the issue and tips on how to tackle it whereas failing to reveal it to regulators or the general public.

The paperwork additionally depict profitable efforts to affect U.S. regulators’ plans to restrict asbestos in beauty talc merchandise and scientific analysis on the well being results of talc.

A small portion of the paperwork have been produced at trial and cited in media reviews. Many have been shielded from public view by courtroom orders that allowed J&J to show over 1000’s of paperwork it designated as confidential. A lot of their contents is reported right here for the primary time.


The earliest mentions of tainted J&J talc that Reuters discovered come from 1957 and 1958 reviews by a consulting lab. They describe contaminants in talc from J&J’s Italian provider as fibrous and “acicular,” or needle-like, tremolite. That’s one of many six minerals that of their naturally occurring fibrous kind are categorized as asbestos.

At numerous occasions from then into the early 2000s, reviews by scientists at J&J, outdoors labs and J&J’s provider yielded comparable findings. The reviews establish contaminants in talc and completed powder merchandise as asbestos or describe them in phrases sometimes utilized to asbestos, corresponding to “fiberform” and “rods.”

In 1976, because the U.S. Meals and Drug Administration (FDA) was weighing limits on asbestos in beauty talc merchandise, J&J assured the regulator that no asbestos was “detected in any pattern” of talc produced between December 1972 and October 1973. It didn’t inform the company that no less than three checks by three completely different labs from 1972 to 1975 had discovered asbestos in its talc – in a single case at ranges reported as “fairly excessive.”

Most inner J&J asbestos check reviews Reuters reviewed don’t discover asbestos. Nevertheless, whereas J&J’s testing strategies improved over time, they’ve at all times had limitations that permit hint contaminants to go undetected – and solely a tiny fraction of the corporate’s talc is examined.

The World Well being Group and different authorities acknowledge no secure stage of publicity to asbestos. Whereas most individuals uncovered by no means develop most cancers, for some, even small quantities of asbestos are sufficient to set off the illness years
later. Simply how small hasn’t been established. Many plaintiffs allege that the quantities they inhaled after they dusted themselves with tainted talcum powder have been sufficient.

The proof of what J&J knew has surfaced after individuals who suspected that talc prompted their cancers employed legal professionals skilled within the decades-long deluge of litigation involving employees uncovered to asbestos. Among the legal professionals knew from these earlier instances that talc producers examined for asbestos, they usually
started demanding J&J’s testing documentation.

What J&J produced in response to these calls for has allowed plaintiffs’ legal professionals to refine their argument: The perpetrator wasn’t essentially talc itself, but in addition asbestos within the talc. That assertion, backed by many years of stable science exhibiting that asbestos causes mesothelioma and is related to ovarian and
different cancers, has had blended success in courtroom.

In two instances earlier this yr – in New Jersey and California – juries awarded large sums to plaintiffs who, like Coker, blamed asbestos-tainted J&J talc merchandise for his or her mesothelioma.

A 3rd verdict, in St. Louis, was a watershed, broadening J&J’s potential legal responsibility: The 22 plaintiffs have been the primary to succeed with a declare that asbestos-tainted Child Powder and Bathe to Bathe talc, a longtime model the corporate bought in 2012, prompted ovarian most cancers, which is way more widespread than mesothelioma. The jury awarded them $four.69 billion in damages. A lot of the talc instances have been introduced by girls with ovarian most cancers who say they often used J&J talc merchandise as a perineal antiperspirant and deodorant.

On the identical time, no less than three juries have rejected claims that Child Powder was tainted with asbestos or prompted plaintiffs’ mesothelioma. Others have failed to succeed in verdicts, leading to mistrials.


J&J has stated it’ll enchantment the latest verdicts in opposition to it. It has maintained in public statements that its talc is secure, as proven for years by the perfect checks out there, and that the knowledge it has been required to expose in latest litigation reveals the care the corporate takes to make sure its merchandise are asbestos-free. It has blamed its losses on juror confusion, “junk” science, unfair courtroom guidelines and overzealous legal professionals searching for a contemporary pool of asbestos plaintiffs.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys out for private monetary acquire are distorting historic paperwork and deliberately creating confusion within the courtroom and within the media,” Ernie Knewitz, J&J’s vice chairman of world media relations, wrote in an emailed response to Reuters’ findings. “That is all a calculated try to distract from the truth that 1000’s of unbiased checks show our talc doesn’t include asbestos or trigger most cancers. Any suggestion that Johnson & Johnson knew or hid details about the security of talc is fake.”

J&J declined to remark additional for this text. For greater than two months, it turned down repeated requests for an interview with J&J executives. On Dec. eight, the corporate provided to make an knowledgeable out there. It had not achieved in order of Thursday night.

The corporate referred all inquiries to its outdoors litigation counsel, Peter Bicks. In emailed responses, Bicks rejected Reuters’ findings as “false and deceptive.” “The scientific consensus is that the talc utilized in talc-based physique powders doesn’t trigger most cancers, regardless of what’s in that talc,” Bicks wrote. “That is true even when – and it doesn’t – Johnson & Johnson’s beauty talc had ever contained minute, undetectable quantities of asbestos.” He dismissed checks cited on this article as “outlier” outcomes.

In courtroom, J&J legal professionals have advised jurors that firm data exhibiting that asbestos was detected in its talc referred to talc supposed for industrial use. Different data, they’ve argued, referred to non-asbestos types of the identical minerals that their specialists say are innocent. J&J has additionally argued that some checks picked up “background” asbestos – stray fibers that would have contaminated samples after floating right into a mill or lab from a car clutch or fraying insulation.

The corporate has made a few of the identical arguments about lab checks performed by specialists employed by plaintiffs. A type of labs discovered asbestos in Bathe to Bathe talc from the 1990s, in accordance with an Aug. 11, 2017, courtroom report. One other lab discovered asbestos in additional than half of a number of samples of Child Powder from previous many years – in bottles from plaintiffs’ cabinets and bought from eBay, and even a 1978 bottle held in J&J’s company museum. The concentrations have been nice sufficient that customers “would have, extra doubtless than not, been uncovered,” the plaintiffs’ lab report introduced in a number of instances this yr concluded.

Matthew Sanchez, a geologist with consultants RJ Lee Group Inc and a frequent knowledgeable witness for J&J, dismissed these findings in testimony within the St. Louis trial: “I’ve not discovered asbestos in any of the present or trendy, what I take into account trendy, Johnson & Johnson talc merchandise,” Sanchez advised the jury. Sanchez didn’t return calls in search of remark. RJ Lee stated it doesn’t touch upon the work it does for purchasers.

Since 2003, talc in Child Powder bought in the US has come from China by means of provider Imerys SA, a co-defendant in many of the talc litigation. Each firms stated the Chinese language talc is secure. An Imerys spokesman stated the Paris-based firm’s checks “constantly present no asbestos. Talc’s secure use has been confirmed by a number of regulatory and scientific our bodies.”

J&J, based mostly in New Brunswick, New Jersey, has dominated the talc powder marketplace for greater than 100 years, its gross sales outpacing these of all opponents mixed, in accordance with Euromonitor Worldwide information. And whereas talc merchandise contributed simply $420 million to J&J’s $76.5 billion in income final yr, Child Powder is taken into account a necessary aspect of the healthcare-products maker’s rigorously tended picture as a caring firm – a “sacred cow,” as one 2003 inner e mail put it.

“When folks actually perceive what’s occurring, I believe it will increase J&J’s publicity a thousand-fold,” stated Mark Lanier, one of many legal professionals for the ladies within the St. Louis case.

The mounting controversy surrounding J&J talc hasn’t shaken traders. The share value is up about 6 % to this point this yr. Talc instances make up fewer than 10 % of all private harm lawsuits pending in opposition to J&J, based mostly on the corporate’s Aug. 2 quarterly report, by which the corporate stated it believed it had “robust grounds on enchantment.”

J&J Chairman and Chief Government Officer Alex Gorsky has pledged to battle on, telling analysts in July: “We stay assured that our merchandise don’t include asbestos.”

Gorsky’s remark, echoed in numerous J&J statements, misses a vital level. Asbestos, like many environmental carcinogens, has a protracted latency interval. Prognosis normally comes years after preliminary publicity – 20 years or longer for mesothelioma. J&J talc merchandise at the moment could also be secure, however the talc at subject in 1000’s of lawsuits was bought and used over the previous 60 years.


In 1886, Robert Wooden Johnson enlisted his youthful brothers in an eponymous startup constructed across the “Security First” motto. Johnson’s Child Powder grew out of a line of medicated plasters, sticky rubber strips loaded with mustard and different dwelling cures. When prospects complained of pores and skin irritation, the brothers despatched packets of talc.

Quickly, moms started making use of the talc to infants’ diaper-chafed pores and skin. The Johnsons took notice. They added a perfume that may turn into one of the recognizable on the earth, sifted the talc into tin bins and, in 1893, started promoting it as Johnson’s Child Powder.

Within the late 1950s, J&J found that talc from its chief supply mine for the U.S. market within the Italian Alps contained tremolite. That’s certainly one of six minerals – together with chrysotile, actinolite, amosite, anthophyllite and crocidolite – that happen in nature as crystalline fibers generally known as asbestos, a acknowledged carcinogen. A few of them, together with tremolite, additionally happen as unremarkable “non-asbestiform” rocks. Each kinds usually happen collectively and in talc deposits.

J&J’s fear on the time was that contaminants made the corporate’s powder abrasive. It despatched tons of its Italian talc to a non-public lab in Columbus, Ohio, to seek out methods to enhance the looks, really feel and purity of the powder by eradicating as a lot “grit” as potential. In a pair of reviews from 1957 and 1958, the lab stated the talc contained “from lower than 1 % to about three % of contaminants,” described as largely fibrous and “acicular” tremolite.

A lot of the authors of those and different J&J data cited on this article are lifeless. Sanchez, the RJ Lee geologist whose agency has agreed to supply him as a witness in as much as 100 J&J talc trials, has testified that tremolite discovered many years in the past within the firm’s talc, from Italy and later Vermont, was not tremolite asbestos in any respect. Relatively, he has stated, it was “cleavage fragments” from non-asbestiform tremolite.

J&J’s unique data don’t at all times make that distinction. By way of well being danger, regulators because the early 1970s have handled small fiber-shaped particles of each kinds the identical.

The U.S. Environmental Safety Company, for instance, “makes no distinction between fibers and (comparable) cleavage fragments,” company officers wrote in a response to an RJ Lee report on an unrelated matter in 2006, the yr earlier than the agency employed Sanchez. The Occupational Security and Well being Administration (OSHA), although it dropped the non-fibrous types of the minerals from its definition of asbestos in 1992, nonetheless recommends that fiber-shaped fragments indistinguishable from asbestos be counted in its publicity checks.

And because the product security director for J&J’s talc provider acknowledged in a 2008 e mail to colleagues: “(I)f a deposit incorporates ‘non-asbestiform’ tremolite, there’s additionally asbestiform tremolite naturally current as nicely.”


In 1964, J&J’s Windsor Minerals Inc subsidiary purchased a cluster of talc mines in Vermont, with names like Argonaut, Rainbow, Frostbite and Black Bear. By 1966, it was blasting and bulldozing white rock out of the Inexperienced Mountain state. J&J used the milled powder in its beauty powders and bought a less-refined grade to roofing, flooring and tire firms to be used in manufacturing.

Ten years after tremolite turned up within the Italian talc, it confirmed up in Vermont talc, too. In 1967, J&J discovered traces of tremolite and one other mineral that may happen as asbestos, in accordance with a desk hooked up to a Nov. 1, 1967, memo by William Ashton, the manager answerable for J&J’s talc provide for many years.

J&J continued to seek for sources of unpolluted talc. However in an April 9, 1969, memo to an organization physician, Ashton stated it was “regular” to seek out tremolite in lots of U.S. talc deposits. He advised J&J rethink its method. “Traditionally, in our Firm, Tremolite has been unhealthy,” Ashton wrote. “How unhealthy is Tremolite medically, and the way a lot of it could actually safely be in a talc base we’d develop?”

Since pulmonary illness, together with most cancers, seemed to be on the rise, “it could appear to be prudent to restrict any potential content material of Tremolite … to an absolute minimal,” got here the reply from one other doctor government days later.

The physician advised Ashton that J&J was receiving security questions from pediatricians. Even Robert Wooden Johnson II, the founder’s son and then-retired CEO, had expressed “concern over the potential of the adversarial results on the lungs of infants or moms,” he wrote.

“Now we have replied,” the physician wrote, that “we might not regard the utilization of our powders as presenting any hazard.” Such assurances can be not possible, he added, “if we do embody Tremolite in additional than unavoidable hint quantities.”

The memo is the earliest J&J doc reviewed by Reuters that discusses tremolite as greater than a scratchy nuisance. The physician urged Ashton to seek the advice of with firm legal professionals as a result of “it’s not inconceivable that we may turn into concerned in litigation.”


By the early 1970s, asbestos was well known as the first reason for mesothelioma amongst employees concerned in producing it and in industries that used it of their merchandise.

Regulation was within the air. In 1972, President Richard Nixon’s newly created OSHA issued its first rule, setting limits on office publicity to asbestos mud.

By then, a workforce at Mount Sinai Medical Middle led by pre-eminent asbestos researcher Irving Selikoff had began taking a look at talcum powders as a potential answer to a puzzle: Why have been checks of lung tissue taken submit mortem from New Yorkers who by no means labored with asbestos discovering indicators of the mineral? Since talc deposits are sometimes laced with asbestos, the scientists reasoned, maybe talcum powders performed a job.

They shared their preliminary findings with New York Metropolis’s environmental safety chief, Jerome Kretchmer. On June 29, 1971, Kretchmer knowledgeable the Nixon administration and known as a press convention to announce that two unidentified manufacturers of beauty talc appeared to include asbestos.

The FDA opened an inquiry. J&J issued an announcement: “Our fifty years of analysis information on this space signifies that there isn’t a asbestos contained within the powder manufactured by Johnson & Johnson.”

Later that yr, one other Mount Sinai researcher, mineralogist Arthur Langer, advised J&J in a letter that the workforce had discovered a “comparatively small” quantity of chrysotile asbestos in Child Powder.

Langer, Selikoff and Kretchmer ended up on a J&J record of “antagonistic personalities” in a Nov. 29, 1972, memo, which described Selikoff because the chief of an “assault on talc.”

“I suppose I used to be antagonistic,” Langer advised Reuters. Even so, in a subsequent check of J&J powders in 1976, he didn’t discover asbestos – a outcome that Mount Sinai introduced.

Langer stated he advised J&J legal professionals who visited him final yr that he stood by all of his findings. J&J has not known as him as a witness.

Selikoff died in 1992. Kretchmer stated he lately learn jury had concluded that Child Powder was contaminated with asbestos. “I stated to myself, ‘How come it took so lengthy?’ ” he stated.

In July 1971, in the meantime, J&J despatched a delegation of scientists to Washington to speak to the FDA officers wanting into asbestos in talcum powders. In keeping with an FDA account of the assembly, J&J shared “proof that their talc incorporates lower than 1%, if any, asbestos.”

Later that month, Wilson Nashed, one of many J&J scientists who visited the FDA, stated in a memo to the corporate’s public relations division that J&J’s talc contained hint quantities of “fibrous minerals (tremolite/actinolite).”


Because the FDA continued to analyze asbestos in talc, J&J despatched powder samples to be examined at non-public and college labs. Although a non-public lab in Chicago discovered hint quantities of tremolite, it declared the quantity “insignificant” and the samples “considerably freed from asbestiform materials.” J&J reported that discovering to the FDA beneath a canopy letter that stated the “outcomes clearly present” the samples examined “include no chrysotile asbestos.” J&J’s lawyer advised Reuters the tremolite discovered within the samples was not asbestos.

However J&J’s FDA submission disregarded College of Minnesota professor Thomas E. Hutchinson’s discovering of chrysotile in a Bathe to Bathe pattern – “incontrovertible asbestos,” as he described it in a lab notice.

The FDA’s personal examinations discovered no asbestos in J&J powder samples within the 1f970s. These checks, nevertheless, didn’t use essentially the most delicate detection strategies. An early check, for instance, was incapable of detecting chrysotile fibers, as an FDA official acknowledged in a J&J account of an Aug. 11, 1972, assembly with the company: “I perceive that some samples will likely be handed regardless that they include such fibers, however we’re prepared to reside with it.”

By 1973, Tom Shelley, director of J&J’s Central Analysis Laboratories in New Jersey, was wanting into buying patents on a course of British mineralogist and J&J marketing consultant was growing to separate talc from tremolite.

“It’s fairly potential that ultimately tremolite will likely be prohibited in all talc,” Shelley wrote on Feb. 20, 1973, to a British colleague. Subsequently, he added, the “course of might be invaluable property to us.”

On the finish of March, Shelley acknowledged the sensitivity of the plan in a memo despatched to a J&J lawyer in New Jersey: “We are going to need to rigorously take into account the … patents re asbestos in talc. It’s fairly potential that we might want to hold the entire thing confidential fairly than permit it to be revealed in patent kind and thus let the entire world know.”

J&J didn’t acquire the patents.

Whereas Shelley was wanting into the patents, J&J analysis director DeWitt Petterson visited the corporate’s Vermont mining operation. “Sometimes, sub-trace portions of tremolite or actinolite are identifiable,” he wrote in an April 1973 report on the go to. “And these is likely to be categorized as asbestos fiber.”

J&J ought to “defend our powder franchise” by eliminating as many tiny fibers that may be inhaled in airborn talc mud as potential, Petterson wrote. He warned, nevertheless, that “no last product will ever be made which will likely be completely free from respirable particles.” Introducing a cornstarch model of Child Powder, he famous, “is clearly one other reply.”

Bicks advised Reuters that J&J believes that the tremolite and actinolite Petterson cited weren’t asbestos.

Cornstarch got here up once more in a March 5, 1974, report by which Ashton, the J&J talc provide chief, advisable that the corporate analysis that different “for defensive causes” as a result of “the thrust in opposition to talc has centered totally on organic issues alleged to outcome from the inhalation of talc and associated mineral particles.”


A number of months after Petterson’s recognition that talc purity was a pipe dream, the FDA proposed a rule that talc utilized in medication include not more than zero.1 % asbestos. Whereas the company’s cosmetics division was contemplating comparable motion on talcum powders, it requested firms to recommend testing strategies.

On the time, J&J’s Child Powder franchise was consuming 20,000 tons of Vermont talc a yr. J&J pressed the FDA to approve an X-ray scanning approach that an organization scientist stated in an April 1973 memo allowed for “an computerized 1% tolerance for asbestos.” That will imply talc with as much as 10 occasions the FDA’s proposed restrict for asbestos in medication may go muster.

The identical scientist confided in an Oct. 23, 1973, notice to a colleague that, relying on what check the FDA adopted for detecting asbestos in beauty talc, “we might have issues.”

The easiest way to detect asbestos in talc was to pay attention the pattern after which study it by means of microscopes, the Colorado College of Mines Analysis Institute advised J&J in a Dec. 27, 1973, report. In a memo, a J&J lab supervisor stated the focus approach, which the corporate’s personal researchers had earlier used to establish a “tremolite-type” asbestos in Vermont talc, had one limitation: “It could be too delicate.”

In his e mail to Reuters, J&J’s lawyer stated the lab supervisor’s concern was that the check would lead to “false positives,” exhibiting asbestos the place there was none.

J&J additionally launched analysis to learn how a lot powder a child was uncovered to throughout a diapering and the way a lot asbestos may very well be in that powder and stay inside OSHA’s new office publicity limits. Its researchers had strapped an air sampling system to a doll to take measurements whereas it was powdered, in accordance with J&J memos and the minutes of a Feb. 19, 1974, assembly of the Beauty Toiletry and Perfume Affiliation (CTFA), an business group.

“It was calculated that even when talc have been pure asbestos the degrees of publicity of a child throughout a traditional powdering are far beneath the accepted tolerance limits,” the minutes state.

In a Sept. 6, 1974, letter, J&J advised the FDA that since “a considerable security issue may be anticipated” with talc that incorporates 1 % asbestos, “strategies able to figuring out lower than 1% asbestos in talc aren’t essential to guarantee the security of beauty talc.”

Not everybody on the FDA thought that basing a detection technique on such a calculation was a good suggestion. One official known as it “silly,” including, in accordance with a J&J account of a February 1975 assembly: “No mom was going to powder her child with 1% of a recognized carcinogen irregardless of the massive security issue.”


Having failed to steer the FDA that as much as 1 % asbestos contamination was tolerable, J&J started selling self-policing as a substitute for regulation. The centerpiece of this method was a March 15, 1976, bundle of letters from J&J and different producers that the CTFA gave to the company to indicate that they’d succeeded at eliminating asbestos from beauty talc.

“The hooked up letters exhibit accountability of business in monitoring its talcs,” the quilt letter stated. “We’re sure that the abstract will provide you with assurance as to the liberty from contamination by asbestos for supplies of beauty talc merchandise.”

In its letter, J&J stated samples of talc produced between December 1972 and October 1973 have been examined for asbestos, and none was detected “in any pattern.”

J&J didn’t inform the FDA a couple of 1974 check by a professor at Dartmouth Faculty in New Hampshire that turned up asbestos in talc from J&J – “fiberform” actinolite, as he put it. Nor did the corporate inform the FDA a couple of 1975 report from its longtime lab that discovered particles recognized as “asbestos fibers” in 5 of 17 samples of talc from the chief supply mine for Child Powder. “A few of them appear fairly excessive,” the non-public lab wrote in its cowl letter.

Bicks, the J&J lawyer, stated the contract lab’s outcomes have been irrelevant as a result of the talc was supposed for industrial use. He stated the corporate now believes that the actinolite the Dartmouth professor discovered “was not asbestiform,” based mostly on its interpretation of a photograph within the unique lab report.

Simply two months after the Dartmouth professor reported his findings, Windsor Minerals Analysis and Growth Supervisor Vernon Zeitz wrote that chrysotile, “fibrous anthophyllite” and different kinds of asbestos had been “present in affiliation with the Hammondsville ore physique” – the Vermont deposit that equipped Child Powder talc for greater than 20 years.

Zeitz’s Might 1974 report on efforts to reduce asbestos in Vermont talc “strongly urged” the adoption of how to guard “in opposition to what are at the moment thought-about to be supplies presenting a extreme well being hazard and are probably current in all talc ores in use right now.”

Bicks stated that Zeitz was not reporting on precise check outcomes.

The next yr, Zeitz reported that based mostly on weekly checks of talc samples over six months, “it may be acknowledged with a better than 99.9% certainty that the ores and supplies produced from the ores in any respect Windsor Mineral places are free from asbestos or asbestiform minerals.”


J&J’s selective use of check outcomes figured in a New Jersey decide’s choice this yr to affirm the primary verdict in opposition to the corporate in a case claiming asbestos in J&J merchandise prompted most cancers. “Offering the FDA favorable outcomes exhibiting no asbestos and withholding or failing to supply unfavorable outcomes, which present asbestos, is a type of a misrepresentation by omission,” Middlesex County Superior Court docket Decide Ana Viscomi stated in her June ruling.

“J&J respectfully disagrees with the Decide’s feedback,” Bicks stated. “J&J didn’t withhold any related testing from FDA.”

The FDA declined to touch upon the ruling.

Missing consensus on testing strategies, the FDA postponed motion to restrict asbestos in talc. Years later, it did set limits on asbestos in talc utilized in medication. It has by no means restricted asbestos in beauty talc or established a most well-liked technique for detecting it.

As a substitute, in 1976, a CTFA committee chaired by a J&J government drafted voluntary pointers, establishing a type of X-ray scanning with a zero.5 % detection restrict as the first check, the tactic J&J most well-liked. The tactic shouldn’t be designed to detect essentially the most generally used sort of asbestos, chrysotile, in any respect. The group stated the extra delicate electron microscopy was impractical.

The CTFA, which now does enterprise because the Private Care Merchandise Council, declined to remark.

X-ray scanning is the first technique J&J has used for many years. The corporate additionally periodically requires the extra delicate checks with electron microscopes. J&J’s lawyer stated the corporate’s checks exceed the commerce affiliation customary, they usually do. He additionally stated that at the moment, J&J’s X-ray scans can detect suspect minerals at ranges as little as zero.1 % of a pattern.

However the firm by no means adopted the Colorado lab’s 1973 advice that samples be concentrated earlier than examination beneath a microscope. And the talc samples that have been subjected to essentially the most delicate electron microscopy check have been a tiny fraction of what was bought. For these and different causes, J&J couldn’t assure its Child Powder was asbestos-free when plaintiffs used it, in accordance with specialists, together with some who testified for plaintiffs.

As early as 1976, Ashton, J&J’s longtime talc overseer, acknowledged as a lot in a memo to colleagues. He wrote that talc usually, if subjected to essentially the most delicate testing technique, utilizing concentrated samples, “will likely be onerous pressed in supporting purity claims.” He described this kind of testing as each “subtle” and “disturbing.”


By 1977, J&J appeared to have tamped down issues in regards to the security of talc. An inner August report on J&J’s “Protection of Talc Security” marketing campaign famous that unbiased authorities had deemed beauty talc merchandise to be “freed from hazard.” It attributed “this rising opinion” to the dissemination to scientific and medical communities in the US and Britain of “favorable information from the assorted J&J sponsored research.”

In 1984, FDA cosmetics chief and former J&J worker Heinz Eiermann reiterated that view. He advised the New York Occasions that the company’s investigation a decade earlier had prompted the business to make sure that talc was asbestos-free. “So in subsequent analyzes,” he advised the paper, “we actually couldn’t establish asbestos or solely on very uncommon events.”

Two years later, the FDA rejected a citizen request that beauty talc carry an asbestos warning label, saying that even when there have been hint contamination, using talc powder throughout two years of regular diapering wouldn’t enhance the chance of most cancers.

In 1980, J&J started providing a cornstarch model of Child Powder – to broaden its buyer base to individuals who want cornstarch, the corporate says.

The persistence of the business’s view that beauty talc is asbestos-free is why no research have been performed on the incidence of mesothelioma amongst customers of the merchandise. It’s additionally partly why rules that defend folks in mines, mills, factories and colleges from asbestos-laden talc don’t apply to infants and others uncovered to beauty talc – regardless that Child Powder talc has at occasions come from the identical mines as talc bought for industrial use. J&J says beauty talc is extra totally processed and thus purer than industrial talc.

Till lately, the American Most cancers Society (ACS) accepted the business’s place, saying on its web site: “All talcum merchandise utilized in houses have been asbestos-free because the 1970s.”

After receiving inquiries from Reuters, the ACS in early December revised its web site to take away the peace of mind that beauty talcs are freed from asbestos. Now, it says, quoting the business’s requirements, that each one beauty talc merchandise in the US “needs to be free from detectable quantities of asbestos.”

The revised ACS net web page additionally notes that the World Well being Group’s Worldwide Company for Analysis on Most cancers classifies talc that incorporates asbestos as “carcinogenic to people.”

Regardless of the success of J&J’s efforts to advertise the security of its talc, the corporate’s check lab discovered asbestos fibers in samples taken from the Vermont operation in 1984, 1985 and 1986. Bicks stated: “The samples that we all know of throughout this time interval that contained a fiber or two of asbestos weren’t beauty talc samples.”

Then, in 1992, three years after J&J bought its Vermont mines, the brand new proprietor, Cyprus Minerals, stated in an inner report on “vital environmental points” in its talc reserves that there was “previous tremolite” within the Hammondsville deposit. Hammondsville was the first supply of Child Powder talc from 1966 till its shutdown in 1990.

Bicks rejected the Cyprus report as rumour, saying there isn’t a unique documentation to verify it. Hammondsville mine data, in accordance with a 1993 J&J memo, “have been destroyed by the mine administration workers simply previous to the J&J divestiture.”

Bicks stated the destroyed paperwork didn’t embody talc testing data.

In 2002 and 2003, Vermont mine operators discovered chrysotile asbestos fibers on a number of events in talc produced for Child Powder bought in Canada. In every case, a single fiber was recorded – a discovering deemed “BDL” – beneath detection restrict. Bicks described the discovering as “background asbestos” that didn’t come from any talc supply.

In 2009, the FDA, responding to rising public concern about talc, commissioned checks on 34 samples, together with a bottle of J&J Child Powder and samples of Imerys talc from China. No asbestos was detected.

FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb stated the company continues to obtain loads of questions on talc cosmetics. “I acknowledge the priority,” he advised Reuters. He stated the company’s policing of cosmetics usually – fewer than 30 folks regulating a “huge” business – was “a spot the place we predict we may be doing extra.”

Gottlieb stated the FDA deliberate to host a public discussion board in early 2019 to “have a look at how we might develop requirements for evaluating any potential danger.” An company spokeswoman stated that would come with inspecting “scientific check strategies for evaluation of asbestos.”


Earlier than legislation college, Herschel Hobson labored at a rubber plant. There, his job included making certain that asbestos in talc the employees have been uncovered to didn’t exceed OSHA limits.

That’s why he zeroed in on Johnson’s Child Powder after he took on Darlene Coker as a consumer in 1997. The lawsuit Coker and her husband, Roy, filed that yr in opposition to J&J in Jefferson County District Court docket in Beaumont, Texas, is the earliest Reuters discovered alleging Child Powder prompted most cancers.

Hobson requested J&J for any analysis it had into the well being of its mine employees; talc manufacturing data from the mid-1940s by means of the 1980s; depositions from managers of three labs that examined talc for J&J; and any paperwork associated to testing for fibrous or asbestiform supplies.

J&J objected. Hobson’s “fishing expedition” wouldn’t flip up any related proof, it asserted in a Might 6, 1998, movement. In actual fact, among the many 1000’s of paperwork Hobson’s request may have turned up was a letter J&J legal professionals had acquired solely weeks earlier from a Rutgers College geologist confirming that she had discovered asbestos within the firm’s Child Powder, recognized in her 1991 revealed examine as tremolite “asbestos” needles.

Hobson agreed to postpone his discovery calls for till he bought the pathology report on Coker’s lung tissue. Earlier than it got here in, J&J requested the decide to dismiss the case, arguing that Coker had “no proof” Child Powder prompted mesothelioma.

Ten days later, the pathology report landed: Coker’s lung tissue contained tens of 1000’s of “lengthy fibers” of 4 various kinds of asbestos. The findings have been “in line with publicity to talc containing chrysotile and tremolite contamination,” the report concluded.

“The asbestos fibers discovered increase a brand new subject of reality,” Hobson advised the decide in a request for extra time to file an opposition to J&J’s dismissal movement. The decide gave him extra time however turned down his request to renew discovery.

With out proof from J&J and no hope of ever getting any, Hobson suggested Coker to drop the go well with.

Hobson remains to be working towards legislation in Nederland, Texas. When Reuters advised him in regards to the proof that had emerged in latest litigation, he stated: “They knew what the issues have been, they usually hid it.” J&J’s data would have made a “100% distinction” in Coker’s case.

Had the details about asbestos in J&J’s talc come out earlier, he stated, “perhaps there would have been 20 years much less publicity” for different folks.

Bicks, the J&J lawyer, stated Coker dropped her case as a result of “the invention established that J&J talc had nothing to do with Plaintiff’s illness, and that asbestos publicity from a business or occupational setting was the doubtless trigger.”

Coker by no means discovered why she had mesothelioma. She did beat the chances, although. Most sufferers die inside a yr of analysis. Coker held on lengthy sufficient to see her two grandchildren. She died in 2009, 12 years after her analysis, at age 63.

Coker’s daughter Crystal Deckard was 5 when her sister, Cady, was born in 1971. Deckard remembers seeing the white bottle of Johnson’s Child Powder on the altering desk the place her mom diapered her new sister.

“When Mother was given this dying sentence, she was the identical age as I’m proper now,” Deckard stated. “I’ve it behind my thoughts on a regular basis. Might it occur to us? Me? My sister?”

(Edited by Janet Roberts and John Blanton)