Johnson & Johnson Remorseful Over Funding Human Asbestos Experiments, But Says They Were Common in the Past

Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder woes do not look like they will be ending any time soon as newly unsealed court documents, first reported by Bloomberg, reveal that the company funded human experiments in 1971 that involved injecting almost a dozen prisoners in a Pennsylvania jail with asbestos.

In one study, the investigators wanted to evaluate the possible cancer-causing effects of asbestos versus talc, one of the main ingredients in the baby powder, on the skin of the prisoners. They paid the inmates for their participation, most of whom were Black.

The studies were conducted by dermatologist Albert Kligman at Holmesburg Prison in Pennsylvania, who performed hundreds of experiments over two decades at the prison. Kligman’s human experimentations were known at the time and for decades afterward, appearing in newspapers and books; however, Johnson & Johnson’s involvement in them has only been revealed now.

Apart from Johnson & Johnson, Dow Chemical and the US government were other big players that funded the asbestos studies.

Mined talc is prone to asbestos contamination because the two minerals are often found together in nature.

Johnson & Johnson has been hit with about 38,000 lawsuits to date by women who claim that use of the company’s asbestos-laced baby powder caused cancer, namely ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

Johnson & Johnson discontinued selling the baby powder in the US and Canada in May 2020 citing a drop in demand.

Related:  Black Women’s Group Launches Lawsuit Against Johnson & Johnson Over Targeted Baby Powder Ads

The unsealed asbestos experiment files were unearthed in two trials last year pertaining to the baby powder. Bloomberg said that according to legal experts, the information could be powerful evidence in future cases and could justify punishment awards.

Johnson & Johnson acknowledged the baby powder studies and expressed remorse over them.

“We deeply regret the conditions under which these studies were conducted, and in no way do they reflect the values or practices we employ today,” Kim Montagnino, a company spokeswoman, told Bloomberg. “As the world’s largest healthcare company, our transparent, diligent approach to bioethics is at the heart of all we promise our customers and society.”

However, they also defended the past experimentations, chalking it up to the poor bioethical standards at the time under which this type of human testing was permissible.

“The dignity of clinical testing participants must always be the highest moral imperative, which is why this type of testing was discontinued more than 40 years ago,” a Johnson & Johnson spokesperson told Fierce Pharma. “At the time of these studies, nearly 50 years ago, testing of this nature among this cohort set was widely accepted, including by prominent researchers, leading public companies and the US government itself.”

In the asbestos experiments, Kligman recruited ten inmates to receive injections of tremolite and chrysotile asbestos, as well as a shot of talc in their lower backs, outlined Bloomberg. According to Brown University medical professor David Egilman, who testified as an expert for plaintiffs in several talc cases pertaining to Kligman’s 1971 report on his study, the chrysotile form of asbestos had the “biggest effect” on the skin of the prisoners, “causing granulomas, which are cells clumped together in a raised area.” These lesions can be indicative of lung disease or other ailments linked to asbestos exposure.

In another study, Kligman and his colleagues investigated whether the type of containers that the baby powder was stored could have an effect on the skin. According to the 1968 report on the study, the investigation involved 50 healthy adult males from the Holmesburg prison of whom 44 were Black. After administration of talc from different containers and covered with dressings, Kligman reported that “neither sample from the different containers caused a reaction.” The studies are yet another example of the racial medical abuse that Black people were subjected to in America’s health systems, breeding medical mistrust among Black communities in America that continues to exist today.

Leodus Jones, one of the prisoners who participated in Kligman’s studies, told a newspaper in the late 1990s that the tests left white scars on his back. His daughter said she saw the scars when she was four or five years old and that they left her shaken. Although Jones, who passed away in 2018 at age 74, said he couldn’t remember if he was a subject in the experiments, his daughter is asking Penn to pay reparations to the families of Holmesburg prisoners who participated in the research, according to Bloomberg.

Last year, Penn’s medical school apologized for Kligman’s testing and renamed his dermatology professorship after a Black colleague. “Penn Medicine apologizes for the pain Dr. Kligman’s work caused to incarcerated individuals, their families and our broader community,” Penn’s medical school dean, J. Larry Jameson, said in August 2021.

Kligman’s tests were put to an end in 1974 after a public outcry over the studies.

Johnson & Johnson came under fire recently after the company leveraged the “Texas Two Step” bankruptcy approach after its appeal to overturn a $2.1 billion payout to 22 women and their families — cut from an initial $4.7 billion due to some of the plaintiffs being out of state — was rejected by the Supreme Court of Missouri.  The approach involved Johnson & Johnson offloading the liabilities to a subsidiary, and then the subsidiary filed for bankruptcy. The strategy recently received backing from a judge after it was attacked in court.

The company has also drawn criticism for refusing to cease distribution of its baby powder outside of North America. Tulipshare, a London-based investment platform that allows customers to pool shares, proposed a shareholder vote to halt sales of the baby powder globally, including in the UK. Tulipshare submitted the proposal to the US Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC) ahead of Johnson & Johnson’s annual meeting, which is anticipated to be some time in April.

Johnson & Johnson has been pushing back and has called on the SEC to ban the presentation, claiming that the proposal falls “under ordinary business operations” that do not need to be discussed at an annual meeting. It also sent a letter to Tulipshare and the SEC saying the proposal “implicates Johnson & Johnson’s litigation strategy in pending lawsuits to which J&J is a party involving talc-based Baby Powder.”

Tulipshare hit back saying Johnson & Johnson is using the litigation “as an excuse to avoid shareholder debate” and to “silence investors on a major health issue.”

Johnson & Johnson maintains that its baby powder product is “safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer.”