Documents Reaching Back to the 1960s–70s
Birchfield displayed documents to the jury, including:
-
A 1969 memo noting tremolite in talc.
-
A 1973 report acknowledging “fiber-forming minerals” in a company mine.
-
A 1975 file labeled the “talc/ovary problem.”
-
A 1964 discussion about switching to cornstarch — already adopted by the condom industry — because it was absorbable and considered safer.
One 1970s report found tremolite in J&J talc with a handwritten warning: “Do not use this one.”
He said the evidence would show J&J went into “full-blown crisis mode” when an FDA-aligned researcher detected asbestos in its talc, convincing regulators the results were flawed while providing its own contradictory tests.
Defense Fires Back: ‘The Science Isn’t on Their Side’
Allison Brown of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, defending J&J and its Red River Talc unit, countered with a starkly different narrative. She said plaintiffs were selectively quoting old material to evoke outrage.
“I’m disappointed,” she told jurors, “that you’re going to see cherry-picked snippets designed to make you so angry at a big corporation that you’ll turn away from the science.”
Brown said no reliable studies or government tests show J&J talc contains asbestos or causes ovarian cancer. She argued tremolite can appear in talc in both asbestos and non-asbestos forms, and that “trace amounts” do not mean contamination.
She also insisted J&J’s switch to cornstarch in 2020–2023 stemmed not from safety issues but consumer preference.
“You don’t stay in business as long as Johnson & Johnson by doing what’s alleged,” Brown said.
