J&J disputes investigation into asbestos in its baby powder

A blockbuster Reuters report says Johnson & Johnson has long hidden knowledge that its talc contained the carcinogen. The company rejects the findings as it takes heavy stock losses.

JJ responds to baby powder crisis

Even if Johnson & Johnson prevails in court, its trusted brand could be irreparably damaged.

A new Reuters report says the company has known for years that an amount of asbestos, a known carcinogen, could be found in the talc in its baby powder. The company has denied the claims in print and in court as lawsuits pile up against the manufacturer.

The report cites documents that have come to light in recent litigation.

CNBC reported:

The evidence of what J&J knew has surfaced after people who suspected that talc caused their cancers hired lawyers experienced in the decades-long deluge of litigation involving workers exposed to asbestos. Some of the lawyers knew from those earlier cases that talc producers tested for asbestos, and they began demanding J&J’s testing documentation.

What J&J produced in response to those demands has allowed plaintiffs’ lawyers to refine their argument: The culprit wasn’t necessarily talc itself, but also asbestos in the talc. That assertion, backed by decades of solid science showing that asbestos causes mesothelioma and is associated with ovarian and other cancers, has had mixed success in court.

Johnson & Johnson has already been losing in court.

CNBC continued:

In two cases earlier this year – in New Jersey and California – juries awarded big sums to plaintiffs who, like Coker, blamed asbestos-tainted J&J talc products for their mesothelioma.

A third verdict, in St. Louis, was a watershed, broadening J&J’s potential liability: The 22 plaintiffs were the first to succeed with a claim that asbestos-tainted Baby Powder and Shower to Shower talc, a longtime brand the company sold in 2012, caused ovarian cancer, which is much more common than mesothelioma. The jury awarded them $4.69 billion in damages.

J&J vehemently denies the correlation and vows to fight the verdicts. Similar legal pushback helped Monsanto to greatly reduce the legal penalty it faced in a court case alleging its products caused cancer.

CNBC reported:

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys out for personal financial gain are distorting historical documents and intentionally creating confusion in the courtroom and in the media,” Ernie Knewitz, J&J’s vice president of global media relations, wrote in an emailed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.”

J&J declined to comment further for this article. For more than two months, it turned down repeated requests for an interview with J&J executives. On Dec. 8, the company offered to make an expert available. It had not done so as of Thursday evening.

However, the reputational damage might already be done for a brand built on caring for families.  The day the report was announced, J&J lost 11 percent in stock value, amounting to $45 billion.

The company has tried multiple tactics—while not apologizing—to push back against the Reuters report. It has hired experts to testify in court and has tried to discredit reports of asbestos in its product.

The New York Times wrote:

The company defends the safety of its baby powder, saying that it has never contained asbestos and that the claims are based on “junk science.” Johnson & Johnson says that the lawyers in the cases have “cherry-picked” the memos, and that they instead show the company’s focus on safety.

“Johnson & Johnson’s talc has been tested by scientists at multiple entities since the early 1970s up to the present,” said Peter Bicks, a partner at Orrick, one of the law firms representing the company in the lawsuits. “None of these routine tests over the past 50 years detected the presence of asbestos.”

It has even turned to its CEO to calm consumers.

CNBC wrote:

J&J Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Alex Gorsky has pledged to fight on, telling analysts in July: “We remain confident that our products do not contain asbestos.”

Gorsky’s comment, echoed in countless J&J statements, misses a crucial point. Asbestos, like many environmental carcinogens, has a long latency period. Diagnosis usually comes years after initial exposure – 20 years or longer for mesothelioma. J&J talc products today may be safe, but the talc at issue in thousands of lawsuits was sold and used over the past 60 years.

After the report was published, the company attacked the credibility of Reuters itself.

CNBC reported:

“Simply put, the Reuters story is an absurd conspiracy theory, in that it apparently has spanned over 40 years, orchestrated among generations of global regulators, the world’s foremost scientists and universities, leading independent labs, and J&J employees themselves,” the company said in a statement.

Reuters stands by its story.

On social media, users have marveled at the scale of Johnson & Johnson’s potential liability.

Others decried J&J outright:

Still others cheered its precipitous stock price drop:

Many called for increased regulation of large corporations:

Some consumers have a long memory and brought up other J&J products that have harmed customers.

What do you think of Johnson and Johnson’s crisis response, Ragan/PR Daily readers?

COMMENT

Ragan.com Daily Headlines

Sign up to receive the latest articles from Ragan.com directly in your inbox.