It has been close to two months since Johnson & Johnson discontinued its talc-based baby powder in the United States and Canada.

The product, continues to sell in India and other parts of the world though, leading to questions as to why a product that is safe for consumers in some regions is not so in others.

The issue came up again last week when an organisation called ‘Black Women for Wellness’, along with about 200 others from across the world, wrote to J&J requesting them to commit to fully removing their talc-based baby powder from the global market, in North America and abroad, among other things. The organisations represented a coalition of health and environmental justice, women’s and health-affected groups.

When J&J discontinued its baby talc in the US and Canada in May, it had put the decision down to a market that had reduced due to Covid-19, “misinformation” and the “constant barrage of litigation advertising”. The reference was to cases against J&J, linking the use of talc-based powder to ovarian cancer.

Responding to why J&J had not discontinued the product in India, a company spokesperson told BusinessLine that the company remained “steadfastly confident” in the safety of the talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder.

“Decades of research and clinical evidence by independent researchers and scientific review boards across the world support the safety of our product. Johnson’s baby is a beloved brand in India for over 70 years and is the #1 choice of mothers in providing their babies the gentle care they need, with products that are trusted to meet and exceed the highest standards of safety, quality and purity around the world,” the spokesperson said.

Yet, the dust has not settled on the possible asbestos-contamination of talcum powder products. On a related issue, the USFDA had explained the concern about talc. “If talc mining sites are not selected carefully and steps not taken to purify the talc ore sufficiently, the talc may be contaminated with asbestos. And asbestos is a known carcinogen,” the USFDA said.

Calling J&J’s May announcement “half-hearted”, the civil group’s letter said it represented a “baby step toward the kind of meaningful commitment” needed by J&J to protect women from the serious health risks “associated with exposure to asbestos-contaminated, talc-based baby powder”.

Mahesh Zagade, former commissioner of the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration who had investigated J&J-linked cases in India, says the Indian regulator needs to question any company, when product developments are reported in the US or other markets. Greater clarity is required for consumers as there would be many producers of talc-based products, he observed.

J&J had explained its decision to discontinue its talc-based Johnson’s baby powder in the US and Canada “as part of a broader portfolio assessment-related to Covid-19 prioritisation”.

“Demand for talc-based Johnson’s baby powder has been declining in North America due in large part to changes in consumer habits and fuelled by misinformation around the safety of the product,” it added.

J&J had then said, the product would continue to be available in India and other regions where there was “significantly higher demand for the product”. The company has previously maintained, its talc was asbestos-free and that it would defend the safety of its product.

Last month, though, a Missouri appeals court rejected J&J’s effort to overturn an earlier verdict that had gone in favour of the women who had linked their ovarian cancer to baby talc and similar products. It did, however, reduce the damages awarded to $ 2.12 billion from $4.69 billion, according to foreign media reports.

Related Topics