Johnson & Johnson trial: Witnesses testify no cancer causing asbestos in baby powder

CORRECTION: This article has been updated to reflect that Dr. Matthew Sanchez was questioned by attorney David Dearing, not Lance Oliver as previously stated.

Johnson & Johnson, the New Jersey-based company known for its pharmaceutical and medical technology, continues to push back against the narrative that its talc-based baby powder is linked with causing ovarian cancer.

Defense attorneys for Johnson & Johnson presented several witnesses Tuesday in a Sarasota County courtroom which affirmed the company's argument that the talc-based powder — which was discontinued in 2020 in the U.S. and Canada — contained no asbestos and did not cause an increased risk of ovarian cancer in consumers who used the product on their perineal area.

Philippe Matthey, on behalf of his mother’s estate, is suing Johnson & Johnson for product liability and wrongful death.

What to know: Civil trial to begin soon in Sarasota against Johnson & Johnson

Previously: Sarasota jury hears opening statements in wrongful death trial against Johnson & Johnson

The complaint alleges that Pat Matthey's cancer was linked to the talc-based baby powder produced by Johnson & Johnson which she had used for more than 50 years. Patricia Matthey died in November 2019 after she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in August 2016, according to court records and testimony.

In a video deposition of Patricia Matthey shared with the jury, Pat Matthey testified that she regularly used Johnson & Johnson's baby powder product since she was 18 years old, recalling the advertisements that were aimed at young women about how the product would make them smell "clean and fresh."

There have been varied opinions from scientists, researchers and government agencies about whether talc-based powders increased the risk of ovarian cancer in women.

Talcum, or talc, is a soft, naturally occurring mineral mainly made up of magnesium, silicon and oxygen, and is often found in mines with asbestos.

Sarasota Judge Lee Haworth denied several directive verdicts from the defense on Wednesday, specifically for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and negligence, while reserving a decision for civil conspiracy. This means that the jury will be able to decide on those claims when they are released to deliberate on Thursday.

Jury hears from Johnson & Johnson representative about why baby powder was discontinued

As of 2020, Johnson & Johnson announced it would stop selling talc-based baby powder in the U.S. and Canada, according to previous reporting.

In August 2022, the company announced plans to pull baby powder products containing talc from store shelves worldwide amid the thousands of lawsuits that claimed it caused cancer. The company said the talc would be replaced with cornstarch.

Dr. Susan Nicholson, who was vice president of Women's Health at Johnson & Johnson, addressed in the latter half of her deposition the reason why Johnson & Johnson decided to discontinue the product, as well as the 2019 recall that followed the Food and Drug Administration announcing it found asbestos in a batch of the company's baby powder.

In May 2020, amid the beginnings of the COVID-19 pandemic, Nicholson testified that Johnson & Johnson did a portfolio review of its products as a way to focus on employee safety in the manufacturing and distribution facilities.

When the time came to decide which products to re-introduce, it was decided that roughly less than 100 products would be discontinued, including its talc-based Baby Powder, Nicholson said.

Nicholson added it had been an opportune time to make the business decision since company records seemed to indicate that the customer call center received a higher percentage of calls concerning the product over the actual number of sales for talc-based baby powder, which had declined in recent years.

A news release from Johnson & Johnson indicated the decline in sales had been connected to "changes in consumer habits and fueled by misinformation around the safety of the product and a constant barrage of litigation advertising."

Lance Oliver, attorney for the Matthey family, mentioned in his closing argument Wednesday afternoon that Johnson & Johnson initially did not want to do the "voluntary" recall of the product, and the only reason the company changed its stance was that the FDA said it would release its findings to the public.

Continued coverage: Trial against Johnson & Johnson: Expert testifies to what was found in baby powder

Previous reporting: Johnson & Johnson baby powder trial: Sarasota woman testifies 'life has been a nightmare'

Witnesses discuss FDA's 2019 finding of asbestos in J&J's Baby Powder

In 2019, the FDA conducted a survey of some 50 cosmetic products for asbestos when it found chrysotile fibers, commonly known as white asbestos, in a bottle of Johnson & Johnson's baby powder from a specific lot or batch, according to an FDA press release.

Following the finding, Johnson & Johnson issued a voluntary recall of the bottles from that lot and began its own investigation, according to testimony.

Nicholson stated that following the recall, Johnson & Johnson had two different laboratories test samples of its talc-based baby powder, including samples from the same bottle that the FDA had tested, samples from another bottle from the same batch, samples from lots before and after the supposed affected batch, and samples from the mines.

A press release from Johnson & Johnson during the time indicated that following the testing, no asbestos was found. Testimony and the press releases referenced possible contamination being the reason asbestos was previously found.

Dr. Matthew Sanchez, a geologist, microscopist and mineralogist expert for Johnson & Johnson, worked as a principal investigator for RJ Lee Group, Inc., one of the laboratories that tested Johnson & Johnson's baby powder product after the FDA found asbestos in a sample.

Sanchez said that testing done in October 2019 did find chrysotile asbestos in three of seven baby powder samples, but it was due to contamination.

According to Nicholson and Sanchez, the asbestos that was found in the three samples because a portable AC unit that had been used in a room and didn't have proper ventilation where the samples were being tested. Sanchez said the theory was that a lab analyst must have touched the AC unit before handling the samples.

Nicholson explained in 52 tests performed in a different laboratory room there was no asbestos found in any of the baby powder samples. So, the lab re-tested the seven samples again in that laboratory which didn't include the portable AC unit, and those tests yielded no asbestos, Nicholson said, which is why investigators believed the first positive tests were due to contamination.

Sanchez, who has testified in at least 35 talc trials for Johnson & Johnson, was also questioned by David Dearing, another attorney for the Matthey family, about the Vermont talc mines where for some time Johnson & Johnson got its talc from.

"Are you saying that there’s no problem having an asbestos vein running through a talc mine," Dearing asked Sanchez.

The geologist explained it's fine to have an asbestos vein running through the mine as long as it's left alone, the asbestos won't migrate to other areas. He explained that tests are usually performed on mines to determine if and where asbestos might be located as a proactive measure to help mining companies know where to avoid mining.

Dearing brought up in questioning that Johnson & Johnson knew there was asbestos found in the Vermont mines since at least the 1970s, and those mines were used until the early 2000s when Johnson & Johnson began using mines from China.

Dearing also pointed out in questioning that the way talc is typically mined involves miners setting up charges and exploding huge chunks of the minerals, a technique that is not very precise.

Sanchez added that tests done on the products showed they weren't contaminated, and that Johnson & Johnson wasn't mining contaminated talc for their product.

Gynecological expert: No cancer detected in either of Matthey's ovaries

Dr. Juan Felix, a pathologist in the gynecological track, explained Tuesday afternoon that when a mineral or particle gets inside the body, it irritates the body and elicits a foreign body response where the body sends cells to isolate the irritating particle from the rest of the body.

He added that every time Pat Matthey had used talc-based powder and if it indeed moved through the reproductive tract, upon examination, he would have seen adhesions throughout the tract.

Instead, Felix said he observed no foreign body reaction, no chronic inflammation or adhesions in Pat Matthey's reproductive organs. However, he did observe foreign body reactions near the area where her intestine ruptured.

Study: No strong link between baby powder and cancer, study finds

Amid cancer lawsuits: Johnson & Johnson to end sales of talc baby powder globally next year amid cancer lawsuits

Oliver questioned Felix about whether he is aware that the body can dissolve foreign particles in the body after the cells have surrounded the particulate. He pointed out the fact that the body can dissolve talc particles, but it does so much more slowly than chrysotile asbestos fibers, which could be the reason why platy talc was found in Dr. Mark Rigler's examination of Pat Matthey's tissues from her ovaries.

In addition, during his questioning, Oliver asked about Felix's use of a specialized technique — polarized light microscopy — to find particles in the body. Looking at slides of Pat Matthey's tissues done with polarized light microscopy, jurors could see silver specks that stood out and appeared to be talc particles found in Pat Matthey's body.

Felix responded saying it was most likely contamination of the tissue slides, as he observed no foreign body response around the particles, meaning the particles couldn't have been there when Pat Matthey was alive as her body would have reacted to the irritation.

Gabriela Szymanowska covers the legal system for the Herald-Tribune in partnership with Report for America. You can support her work with a tax-deductible donation to Report for America. Contact Gabriela Szymanowska at gszymanowska@gannett.com, or on X: @GabrielaSzyman3.

This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Johnson & Johnson witnesses testify 'no asbestos' in baby powder