ST. LOUIS – The plaintiffs in a trial alleging that baby powder maker Johnson & Johnson sold talc products containing asbestos causing women to develop ovarian cancer, contended the company funded a pro-company research paper but did not identify its funding source - to mislead the public.
“Would you agree it’s not good transparency for Johnson & Johnson to hide their funded research behind law firms?” asked Mark Lanier, attorney for the prosecution. “A law firm you used as your front.”
Dr. Joanne Waldstreicher, J&J research and development chief medical officer, denied the company misled.
“I can’t agree with the word ‘secret’ and some of the other language,” she said. “I can’t agree with the way this is phrased.”
At court on June 11 as the second week of trial got under way, Lanier told the jury in the St. Louis City Circuit Court that J&J produced documentation in 2008 that stated the use of talc in baby powder was not genotoxic (caused cell mutation), and studies did not indicate use of talc as a cosmetic caused ovarian cancer.
He said one report had been supported by a contractual agreement between J&J and a San Francisco law firm Crowell & Moring in which funding for the research was not identified, and thus was not acknowledged in the report by its authors—who were not told the source of the funding. Lanier alleged half the funding for the report came from J&J, another half from the mine that sold the company talc.
Talc is a clay mineral of hydrated magnesium silicate and is mined in parts of the U.S. and in European countries such as Italy.
Waldstreicher, who said she had never heard of Crowell & Moring, said it was the responsibility of the authors of the paper to identify the funding of such scientific research.
“How could the authors know (funding) if it’s confidential?” Lanier asked. “It was only between the law firm (Crowell) and you (J&J).”
“It’s hard to make a conclusion about a document like this that is taken out of context,” Waldstreicher said.
“It’s not taken out of context,” Lanier countered. “Would you agree with hiding a funding source behind lawyers?”
“I would not agree with hiding any funding, but it is the authors’ responsibility,” Waldstreicher insisted. “I can’t tell you why the authors did not list Johnson & Johnson if they partially funded the study. I’m not the author of the article.”
Lanier said the end result was that a medical journal had been told talc doesn’t cause cancer despite evidence to the contrary.
“That’s the conclusion,” he said.
Waldstreicher said expert employees of the company had assured the talc powder product was “asbestos free.”
“I believe there is no asbestos in the product,” Waldstreicher maintained.
Lanier also cited an incident in 1975 when a paper to discuss the physical and mineral characteristic properties of talc at a science conference in Scotland was withdrawn after industry pressure and harassment were put on the paper’s author.
“I don’t know what happened here. I’m distressed there was a perception of harassment,” Waldstreicher remarked.
The trial which is expected to continue for a month is being pursued by 22 women across the country who said they got cancer from using the J&J talc powder. Six of the women who originally filed the suit have since died according to a June 6 report in Bloomberg.