Johnson & Johnson faces lawsuit over alleged asbestos in baby powder

A major legal claim has been filed in the United Kingdom against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, accusing the firm of knowingly selling baby powder contaminated with asbestos.

The claim involves 3,000 people and centres on internal memos and scientific reports seen by the BBC. The lawsuit, brought by KP Law, alleges that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was aware as early as the 1960s that its mineral-based talcum powder contained fibrous forms of talc, including tremolite and actinolite. Both minerals, when in fibrous form, are classified as asbestos and linked to potentially deadly cancers.

Court papers allege that despite knowing the minerals were directly linked to cancer, J&J never issued warnings on its baby powder packaging. Instead, it launched aggressive marketing campaigns portraying the product as a symbol of purity and safety.

J&J denies the allegations and any claims that it knowingly sold baby powder contaminated with asbestos. A statement issued on behalf of the firm said its baby powder “was compliant with any required regulatory standards, did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer”.

The sale of talc-based baby powder in the UK ended in 2023. The UK action mirrors extensive litigation in the United States, where multiple lawsuits have resulted in billions of dollars in damages awarded to claimants. The company has successfully appealed in some cases.

Lawyers for the UK claimants estimate damages could reach hundreds of millions of pounds, potentially making it the largest product liability case in British history.

Alleged Internal Knowledge and Confidentiality

The claims revolve around asbestos, a known carcinogen. Talc, used in J&J powders, is often mined near asbestos deposits. It is the fibrous, needle-like form of asbestos minerals that is associated with cancer.

The claim alleges J&J identified asbestos in its baby powder as early as the 1960s. One internal document from 1973 allegedly states: “Our baby powder contains talc fragments classifiable as fibre. Occasionally sub-trace quantities of tremolite or actinolite are identifiable…”

J&J says the letter discussed potential regulatory changes that might define talc fibres as asbestos, which the firm claims would have been incorrect.

That same year, executives reportedly discussed patenting a method to remove asbestos fibres from talc. A letter allegedly concluded: “We may wish to keep the whole thing confidential rather than allow it to be published in patent form and thus let the whole world know.” J&J says the discussions were confidential due to the potential value of the patent, which ultimately proved ineffective.

The lawsuit claims that despite knowing about carcinogenic fibres, J&J’s marketing team focused on boosting sales. In the 1970s and 1980s, marketing targeted newborns, while in the 1990s and 2000s, it shifted towards African American women.

In 2008, an internal email allegedly stated: “The reality that talc is unsafe for use on or around babies is disturbing… I don’t think we can continue to call it baby powder and keep it in the baby aisle.” J&J says this referred to asphyxiation risks, not cancer or asbestos, and that warnings were present on the bottle.

Regulatory Pressure and Testing Standards

Documents cited in the UK lawsuit allegedly show that from the early 1970s, J&J executives pushed the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to accept lower sensitivity standards for asbestos testing.

The claim says J&J advocated for standards that tolerated up to 1 per cent asbestos contamination, arguing that more sensitive methods were unnecessary. This allegedly allowed the company to maintain claims of product purity, misleading regulators and consumers.

J&J says this misrepresents the context of the document, which referenced a hypothetical calculation requested by the FDA.

Personal Stories and Medical Insight

Many UK claimants are suffering from, or have died from, ovarian cancer, mesothelioma or other cancers. All are alleged to have used J&J’s baby powder over extended periods.

One claimant, Siobhan from Somerset, shared her story with the BBC. “My mother used it and I used it. It smelt nice and was soft and lovely. When my babies were born I used it on them. I thought I was doing my best for them,” she said.

Diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer, Siobhan underwent chemotherapy, major surgery and survived a bout of sepsis. Eighteen months later, she is still fighting.

“They knew it was contaminated and still they sold it to new mums and their babies,” she said.

Ovarian cancer is caused by a combination of genetic, internal and external factors. Professor Christina Fotopoulou, a leading gynaecological oncology surgeon at Imperial College London, explained: “Cancer is usually an accumulation of mistakes in the reproduction cycle of the cells and so any harmful factors, internal or external, that disrupt the balance of the cells may contribute to these mistakes that eventually may lead to cancer.”

Common symptoms include persistent bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, feeling full quickly, and increased or urgent need to urinate. Those experiencing such symptoms frequently should consult a doctor.

US Verdict and Corporate Response

Earlier this month, a court in Connecticut ordered J&J and its successor entities to pay 25 million dollars to a man diagnosed with terminal peritoneal mesothelioma after lifelong use of J&J baby powder. The jury found the company negligent for selling asbestos-contaminated talc products.

Testimony from Dr Steve Mann, former director of toxicology at J&J Consumer Products, revealed he had made safety claims without reviewing test data. He admitted receiving results showing asbestos in the powder but did not inform management or regulators.

The judge noted that safer alternatives, such as cornstarch, were available and known to the company. J&J continued selling talc-based powder in the US until 2020 and in the UK until 2023.

Following the Connecticut ruling, J&J denied wrongdoing and is expected to appeal. Its consumer health arm has since been moved to a new company, Kenvue, which said: “We sympathise deeply with people living with cancer. We understand that they and their families want answers. That is why the facts are so important.”

Kenvue added that the safety of the baby powder was backed by years of testing by independent and leading laboratories, universities and health authorities in the UK and around the world.