Two new investigations into Johnson & Johnson’s (J & J) history have raised serious questions about the company’s ethics, its approach to product safety, and the failures of regulatory systems in both the United States and India. Writing in Himal Southasian, journalist Disha Shetty reports that the two books — The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson: Inside the Global Pharma Giant’s Scandals by New York Times reporter Gardiner Harris, and The Johnson & Johnson Files: The Indian Secrets of a Global Giant by Indian Express journalist Kaunain Sheriff M — together paint a picture of a multinational corporation that repeatedly placed profits above patient safety while exploiting gaps in regulation and accountability.
Harris traces J & J’s conduct over more than a century, documenting how the company concealed asbestos contamination in its baby powder, continued selling faulty implants, and marketed high-risk drugs while downplaying or hiding evidence of harm. He argues that J & J’s ability to avoid scrutiny was enabled by its vast advertising power, which it used to influence regulators, scientists and journalists. “J & J kept whatever evidence it had secret,” Harris writes, describing a corporate culture that rewarded silence and punished dissent.
According to Harris’s research, J & J’s talcum powder — promoted globally as safe for infants — was known to contain trace amounts of asbestos since the 1970s, yet was only withdrawn from the US and Canadian markets in 2020 and from global markets in 2023. He connects this and other controversies, such as the concealment of risks linked to the anti-psychotic drug Risperdal, the blood booster erythropoietin (EPO), and opioid products like Duragesic, to a pattern of deliberate concealment. The company, he writes, “treated patients as customers” rather than as lives entrusted to its care.
Harris also examines the company’s role in the US opioid crisis, which caused more than 100,000 deaths in 2023. J & J’s fentanyl patch Duragesic, he reports, was marketed despite known dangers, contributing to addiction and overdose deaths. While Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin has drawn much of the public outrage, Harris concludes that J & J’s role was deeper and more sustained. He also documents the failure of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate effectively, noting that “when the FDA fails US patients, it also endangers millions elsewhere,” since its approvals often guide decisions in developing countries.
Sheriff documents cases such as that of Mumbai resident Daisy Bharucha, who underwent surgery with a J & J implant in 2007 and later died of complications linked to metal toxicity. Her family’s legal battle lasted more than a decade, ending in a modest settlement of INR 35 lakh in 2024. He shows that patients were often uninformed about the recall and left to discover the risks themselves, with hospitals and doctors continuing to recommend the implants. “Justice and accountability remain elusive,” Sheriff concludes, noting that only a fraction of affected patients in India ever received compensation.
Both books, Shetty writes, reveal systemic failures: weak regulatory oversight, close ties between pharmaceutical companies and doctors, and an absence of transparency. Sheriff highlights how corporate hospitals and medical practitioners benefited from J & J’s marketing incentives, while India’s regulatory agencies lacked the tools or will to act. Even after the global recall, J & J resisted sharing data with Indian authorities, delaying compensation and obstructing investigations.
Harris’s account underscores that such practices were not isolated incidents but reflected an institutional approach to managing risk and reputation. His book shows how J & J cultivated a public image of safety and care while suppressing damaging research and using media sponsorships to limit negative coverage. Sheriff’s work complements this by illustrating how these same corporate strategies, when exported to India, collided with weaker governance structures to devastating effect.
Together, the two books offer a rare cross-continental perspective on a company that remains central to global healthcare. As Shetty observes, “The suffering was entirely preventable had the company acted with integrity.” Both authors conclude that Johnson & Johnson’s actions have not only harmed patients but also undermined public trust in medicine, regulation, and journalism — a legacy still unfolding in courtrooms and hospitals around the world.
Comments