Johnson & Johnson knew for decades talcum powder contained asbestos, reports allege

Our plain-English summary of Johnson & Johnson knew for decades talcum powder contained asbestos, reports allege, by O. Dyer (BMJ, 2018).

The study

• Author: O. Dyer
• Journal: BMJ
• Published: 2018;363:k5430
• Cited by: 4 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Summary of the article

This BMJ news report, published on 28 December 2018, summarised investigations by Reuters and the New York Times alleging that Johnson & Johnson knew its talcum Baby Powder had sometimes contained asbestos. Reuters said it had examined thousands of pages of internal company documents provided to plaintiffs' lawyers in talcum powder litigation. Many of these had not been used in court or were confidential by court order. Reuters reported 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. It said executives, scientists, doctors and lawyers discussed the problem without disclosing it to regulators or the public, and that the company sought to influence US regulators' plans to limit asbestos in cosmetic talc. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had regulated asbestos in drugs but not in cosmetics, and its commissioner announced a public forum for early 2019. Johnson & Johnson called the Reuters report "one-sided, false, and inflammatory" and said independent tests, including FDA tests in the 1970s and 2008-09, found no asbestos. The report noted that about 12 000 plaintiffs were seeking damages for mesothelioma or ovarian cancer. It also described a New Jersey judge's finding of "misrepresentation by omission" and a $4.7bn Missouri award to 22 women with ovarian cancer, which a judge upheld on 19 December. Health Canada had warned that talc may harm the lungs and increase ovarian cancer risk.

PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

In plain English

This is a short BMJ news article, not a scientific study, and it presents no new research data. The author reported on investigations published in December 2018 by Reuters and the New York Times. Reuters said it had examined thousands of pages of internal Johnson & Johnson documents provided to plaintiffs' lawyers in talcum powder litigation. According to Reuters, 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 company staff worried about the problem without disclosing it to regulators or the public. The New York Times made similar allegations. These are allegations reported by the press. Johnson & Johnson called the Reuters report one-sided, false and inflammatory, and said its powder never contained asbestos. The article also reported that about 12 000 plaintiffs were seeking damages for mesothelioma or ovarian cancer that they attribute to the powder. It reported a Missouri award of $4.7bn to 22 women with ovarian cancer, which a judge upheld on 19 December. It also reported a Health Canada warning about talcum powder. The article does not name an asbestos fiber type.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: news article reporting on press investigations and litigation (not a research study)
• Who was studied: Johnson & Johnson's talcum Baby Powder and internal company documents examined by Reuters; about 12 000 plaintiffs in litigation in the US
• Exposure: alleged asbestos contamination of Johnson & Johnson talcum Baby Powder; no fiber type is named
• Main results:
  • Reuters reported 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 this was not disclosed to regulators or the public (allegation)
  • The New York Times published a report making similar allegations
  • Johnson & Johnson rejected the Reuters report and said tests showed its powder had never contained asbestos
  • About 12 000 plaintiffs were seeking damages for mesothelioma or ovarian cancer that they attribute to use of the powder
  • A New Jersey judge found the company had committed misrepresentation by omission in hiding positive asbestos test results from the FDA, as reported by Reuters
  • In Missouri, $4.7bn was awarded to 22 women with ovarian cancer, and on 19 December a St Louis judge upheld that ruling
  • Health Canada warned that talcum powder may harm the lungs and increase the risk of ovarian cancer

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Plaintiff, Talc, Cosmetic Talc, Regulated Asbestos, Damages, Mesothelioma, Ovarian Cancer.

Related studies

• Johnson and Johnson under criminal investigation in US over asbestos in talcum powder — O. Dyer (2019)
• Johnson & Johnson recalls its Baby Powder after FDA finds asbestos in sample — O. Dyer (2019)
• Consumer talcums and powders: mineral and chemical characterization — A.N. Rohl, A.M. Langer, et al. (1976)
• Potential Airborne Asbestos Exposure and Risk Associated with the Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder Products — A.M. Burns, C.A. Barlow, et al. (2019)
• Pulmonary disease caused by the inhalation of cosmetic talcum powder — I.P. Wells, P.A. Dubbins, et al. (1979)
• Asbestos in commercial cosmetic talcum powder as a cause of mesothelioma in women — R. Lee, D. Van Orden (2015)

Browse more research in BMJ, or return to medical research.