The legal battle over the presence of asbestos in Johnson & Johnson talc products took an insidious turn last month as a Black women’s group accused the world’s largest healthcare goods manufacturer of deliberately targeting Black communities with asbestos-laden talc products. The National Council of Negro Women offered the frequently found free samples of talc powder at neighborhood beauty salons and the company’s radio marketing campaigns that specifically targeted Black listeners as evidence of “deceptive marketing to Black women” for decades on end.
The group believes that Johnson & Johnson knew that Black women were more likely to use baby powder than other demographics but were simultaneously at a disadvantage in acquiring health care to deal with the health consequences of that usage. At the same time, the group says, the company knew all along that its products were laden with asbestos yet continued to market to the Black community anyway.
“You’re in kind of a Catch-22 – without insurance, later in the disease, not getting good advice, and then add to that a corporation that is intentionally targeting you,” said Janice Mathis, executive director of the Council. At a press conference convened regarding the lawsuit, Ms. Mathis went on to explain that Black women are frequently underinsured and that the medical advice they receive is routinely not as good as that offered to other racial groups.
As with other claims regarding Johnson & Johnson’s knowledge of the presence of talc in its baby powder, the Council also has hard evidence of their claims against the corporation. Internal J&J documents mention the “high usage” of baby powder among Black women as well as “opportunities to grow the franchise” among them while also acknowledging the “negative publicity from the health community on talc.”
Johnson & Johnson has predictably denied the claims. “The accusations being made against our company are false, and the idea that we would purposefully and systematically target a community with bad intentions is unreasonable and absurd.”
In any other timeline, such a denial might carry water and grant pause. But in a time when the company’s name is now synonymous with opioid addiction and its denials of responsibility in the talc-asbestos matter were so strong they drew the attention of the Justice Department, one has to ask whether it’s really such a stretch to believe these new accusations.
