It’s almost like they are synonymous, baby-care and Johnson and Johnson. Or at least that’s how brand J&J’s baby-care products have been built into popular imagination, as the brand that knows what’s “best for baby”. And they’ve been doing this for 125 years now.

So it’s not unusual to find J&J’s baby powder or oil in many homes, popular with mothers as a safe bet or used by older people, also needing gentle products for their sensitive skin. And it’s this kind of almost unquestioning consumer loyalty that is set to take a hard knock as questions are increasingly asked of the baby talc and its possible links to ovarian cancer.

Last week, Health Canada cautioned on the respiratory and cancer dangers of talc use, urging healthcare professionals to advise patients against using talc for feminine hygiene. “The governmental action is based on a thorough analysis of scientific studies linking talc exposure to ovarian cancer and respiratory conditions such as fibrosis,” the regulator said.

This development comes even as J&J is locked in litigation in the US over possible links between talc-based powders and ovarian cancer. It is reportedly facing about 9,000 cases on just this. And in July this year, foreign media reports said that a Missouri jury ordered J&J to pay $4.69 billion to 22 women making the allegation, a decision the company said it would appeal.

Adding to this already boiling cauldron is the recent Reuters investigation that indicated that J&J may have known since 1971 that its baby powder contained small amounts of “cancer-causing” asbestos.

Responding to Health Canada, J&J said that government and non-government agencies “including the US Food and Drug Administration, have concluded that the evidence is insufficient to link cosmetic talc use to cancer. Research, clinical evidence and nearly 40 years of studies by independent medical experts around the world continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc.”

On the media investigation, J&J reiterated that its powder was “safe and asbestos-free.” Pointing out co-operation with global regulators, including the USFDA, it said, “We have also made our cosmetic talc mines and processed talc available to regulators for testing. Regulators have tested both, and they have always found our talc to be asbestos-free.”

In India, J&J’s latest tryst with controversy could not have been worse timed. The company is already in the dock over the recall of its faulty hip implants, following its global recall in 2010. Here too, questions are being asked of J&J’s recall of the product, when reports suggest that doctors and regulators in other countries had raised the alarm well in advance on seeing an increased number of revision surgeries on this product. J&J has been asked to compensate Indian patients on these faulty products. J&J insists that it acted within the law and this too is in court. Company representatives call for “due process” and “transparency” in dealing with this issue that is turning out to be a benchmark case on medical devices, against the backdrop of an inadequate law.

J&J’s baby powder and its baby oil have in the past been hauled over the coals by the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration too, over carcinogenic elements and misbranding charges, respectively. That storm eventually blew over.But the latest round of controversy has opened a new flank on the iconic J&J product. The healthcare major will have much answering to do to keep that faith in its products.

comment COMMENT NOW