Johnson & Johnson (J&J) withdrew its talc-based baby
powder from sale in the US and Canada in 2020. Sales of baby powder had dropped
after US regulators detected carcinogenic chrysotile fibres, a type of asbestos,
in a sample.
The company is now facing more than 34,000 lawsuits
including many from women who claim they used baby powder and later developed
ovarian cancer.
The shareholder vote has been proposed by Tulipshare, a
London-based investment platform that allows customers to pool shares in order
to meet the threshold to submit resolutions for shareholder votes. The proposal
has been submitted to the US Securities and Exchange Committee (SEC) to
consider if it is eligible ahead of J&J’s annual meeting, expected in
April.
Talc, the world’s softest mineral, is mined in several
countries, with uses across industries as diverse as paper, plastics and
pharmaceuticals. Talc’s astringent properties mean it is used to treat nappy
rash and for other personal hygiene uses.
However, talc deposits can sometimes be contaminated with
asbestos, a mineral that can cause cancer if its fibres enter the body. Corn
starch can be used as a replacement
J&J strongly denies that its baby powder is harmful and
said it only pulled the product in North America after a slump in sales
“fuelled by misinformation around the safety of the product”. A spokesperson
pointed to a 2020 cohort study that found no statistically significant
increased risk of ovarian cancer with talc use.
A spokesperson said: “We stand behind the ingredients we use
in our products, and Johnson & Johnson has a rigorous testing standard in
place to ensure our cosmetic talc is safe. Not only is our talc routinely
tested to ensure it does not contain asbestos, but our talc has also been
tested and confirmed to be asbestos-free by a range of independent
laboratories, universities, and global health authorities.”
The barrage of legal claims “have no valid scientific
basis”, the spokesperson said.
J&J’s lawyers, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
have written to the SEC asking that it exclude the shareholder resolution as
ineligible because it would affect pending lawsuits in state and federal courts
in the US and in other countries, including “thousands of personal injury claims
alleging that talc causes cancer”.
J&J has already spent billions on costs and settlements,
including a $2bn (£1.5bn) judgment by a Missouri appeals court in favour of 22
plaintiffs who suffered from ovarian cancer. In October, J&J moved the
potential liabilities for talc products into a separate company, which then
entered bankruptcy in a highly controversial move that could limit its
financial exposure.
Ian Lavery, a Labour MP, last year sponsored an early-day
motion in parliament condemning the “hypercritical and unjustifiable” decision
by J&J to continue to sell talcum powder products outside North America.
Lavery said he welcomed the attempt to force a shareholder vote.
“It is shocking that products that we know can cause serious
illness through contamination with asbestos are still available to buy in the
UK, or anywhere else in the world for that matter,” he said.
“Any action taken against Johnson & Johnson, who
continue to profit handsomely from the sale of this harmful substance despite
knowing its potential effects, is welcome in my book.”