The Lancet Retracts 1977 Talc Safety Paper Linked to J&J
Legislation & Litigation
Written by Travis Rodgers | Edited by Amy Edel
The peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet retracted a nearly 50-year-old paper on March 25, 2026, that had long been used to defend the safety of cosmetic talc. The journal’s editors confirmed that Francis J.C. Roe, a Johnson & Johnson consultant, wrote the unsigned 1977 commentary. The retraction adds new weight to tens of thousands of ongoing talc lawsuits against J&J.
The 1977 paper concluded there was no reason to believe cosmetic talc use could cause cancer. Two public health historians uncovered documents showing Roe shared an advance draft with J&J and revised it based on the company’s feedback before publication. The Lancet’s editors called that undisclosed relationship a “clear breach of publishing ethics.”
This retraction matters beyond the journal world. Defense attorneys in talc lawsuits have used the 1977 paper for decades to argue that cosmetic talc doesn’t cause cancer. Plaintiffs’ attorneys say they now plan to use the retraction directly in upcoming trials against Johnson & Johnson.
How Historians Uncovered the Conflict
Two public health historians brought the conflict of interest to The Lancet’s attention. David Rosner at Columbia University and Gerald Markowitz at John Jay College of Criminal Justice sent a letter to the journal on Dec. 8, 2025, detailing what they found in corporate discovery documents.
Those documents showed Roe shared an advance draft of the 1977 paper with J&J before publication. He then revised it based on the company’s feedback. Neither The Lancet nor its readers knew about Roe’s relationship with J&J at the time of publication.
Rosner and Markowitz found the evidence in ToxicDocs, an open-source database containing more than 15 million pages of documents related to asbestos, lead and other industrial contaminants. Court discovery surfaced the materials in talc-related lawsuits. Rosner said the findings revealed how clearly J&J executives understood what they were doing and how willing a respected scientist was to cooperate with them.
The Lancet’s editors responded quickly after receiving the letter. In their published reply, they said that had editors at the time known about his undeclared relationship with J&J, they wouldn’t have published the paper.
Why the 1977 Paper Mattered
The paper’s original publication came at a crucial moment. In the 1970s, U.S. health officials and the cosmetics industry were fighting over whether to regulate asbestos-contaminated talc. The unsigned Lancet commentary helped the industry push back against proposed federal rules.
Rosner and Markowitz wrote that the paper gave the industry’s opposition added legitimacy. It claimed that cosmetic manufacturers in the U.S. and the U.K. had already ensured their products were nearly free of asbestos, so regulation wasn’t necessary. That argument influenced both federal policy and later litigation.
J&J is pushing back on the retraction. The company claims Rosner and Markowitz are paid expert witnesses for plaintiffs in talc litigation. In a statement, J&J called the retraction part of what it described as “underhanded litigation tactics.” J&J also said FDA officials knew at the time that Roe wrote the paper as an opinion piece.
What This Means for Talc Lawsuits
The retraction carries direct implications for J&J’s ongoing legal battles. J&J faces more than 67,000 lawsuits from people who say they developed ovarian cancer or mesothelioma after using talc-based baby powder and other talc products.
Leigh O’Dell, an attorney representing women who say J&J’s talc caused their cancers, called the retraction “a clear specific example of J&J’s ghost-writing efforts being called out by an independent third party.” O’Dell said her team will use The Lancet’s withdrawal of the paper in trials moving forward. That position reflects a broader shift in how plaintiffs’ attorneys approach J&J’s scientific record.
Recent verdicts show juries are already holding J&J accountable. In December 2025, a Baltimore jury awarded $1.56 billion to Cherie Craft, a Maryland woman diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma after decades of using J&J’s talc-based baby powder. J&J has tried to resolve the broader talc litigation through multiple bankruptcy attempts. But federal courts have rejected the proposal each time. The company stopped selling talcum powder worldwide in 2023 and switched to a cornstarch-based baby powder formula. Though the company maintains its talc products have always been safe.
