A major legal claim has been filed in the UK against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, accusing the firm of knowingly selling baby powder contaminated with asbestos.
The claim involves 3,000 people and focuses on internal memos and scientific reports, which have been seen by the BBC.
The lawsuit alleges that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) was aware as early as the 1960s that its mineral-based talcum powder contained fibrous forms of talc, as well as tremolite and actinolite. Both minerals – when in their fibrous form – are classified as asbestos and linked to potentially deadly cancers.
The court papers allege that, despite knowing the minerals were directly linked to cancers, J&J never issued warnings on the packaging of its baby powder. Instead, it launched aggressive marketing campaigns portraying the powder as a symbol of purity and safety, the lawsuit claims.
J&J denies the allegation as well as 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 baby powder containing talc stopped in the UK in 2023.
The UK action mirrors extensive litigation in the US, where multiple lawsuits have been filed and claimants have been awarded billions of dollars in damages. The company has successfully appealed in some cases.
Lawyers for the claimants estimate damages sought in the UK could extend to hundreds of millions of pounds, and that the claim could become the largest product liability case in British history.
The claims of links between talcum powder and cancer revolve around asbestos, a known cause of cancer.
Talc, which was used in J&J talcum powders, is a naturally occurring mineral that is often mined in proximity to deposits of asbestos. It is asbestos minerals in their fibrous needle-like form that are associated with cancer.
The claim alleges J&J had identified asbestos in its baby powder as early as the 1960s. One internal document from 1973 allegedly says: “Our baby powder contains talc fragments classifiable as fibre. Occasionally, sub-trace quantities of tremolite or actinolite are identifiable…”
J&J says this letter was discussing how regulation might change and thereby define talc fibres as asbestos. The firm said that would have been wrong
In the same year, executives discussed the value of a possible patent for a method that aimed to remove asbestos fibres from talc. At the end of the letter, it added: “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 these discussions were confidential because a new patent could have been extremely valuable if the new method had been effective. Ultimately, it did not prove to be effective.
Instead of declaring warnings on the bottle, the lawsuit claims J&J moved to conceal the risk for decades and maximise profits.
The claim alleges that, despite knowing there were carcinogenic fibres in the baby powder, the firm’s marketing team discussed how to maximise sales.
In the 1970s and 1980s, US marketing focused on the sale of pure and gentle powder for newborn babies. By the 1990s and into the 2000s, the marketing focus turned to African American women.
In 2008, an internal email – seen by the BBC – allegedly discussing branding, says, “The reality that talc is unsafe for use on/around babies is disturbing…” It went on to say: “I don’t think we can continue to call it baby powder and keep it in the baby aisle.”
J&J says this conversation was in reference to asphyxiation, which was a rare but known risk at the time relating to the use of all body powder, but was not linked to cancer or asbestos and was warned about on the bottle.
Documents cited in the UK lawsuit are also alleged to show that from the early 1970s, J&J executives pushed US regulators, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to accept lower sensitivity standards so that tests did not pick up on small amounts of asbestos fibres.
The claim cites internal documents, which it says show J&J advocated for talc testing standards that tolerated up to 1 per cent asbestos contamination, arguing that more sensitive detection methods were unnecessary.
Misleading regulators
This, the lawsuit alleges, enabled the company to maintain claims of product purity, misleading regulators and consumers about the presence of asbestos in its talc products.
J&J says this misrepresents the context of the document, which references a hypothetical calculation, as requested by the FDA.
Many of the claimants in the UK are suffering from, or have died from, ovarian cancer, mesothelioma – a cancer that is usually caused by asbestos exposure – or other cancers. All the claimants are alleged to have used J&J’s baby powder over an extended period of time.
Siobhan Ryan, 63, was one young mother who saw the adverts and says she trusted J&J’s baby powder.
“My mother used it, and I used it. It smelled 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 told the BBC from her home in Somerset.
“It was such a shock. We just hugged and cried. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing when the doctor told me I had stage 4 ovarian cancer.”
At the time of diagnosis, it wasn’t clear how long Siobhan would survive, but after three rounds of chemotherapy, a bout of sepsis that nearly killed her, and major surgery to her abdomen, she is alive and able to tell her story 18 months later.
Siobhan, like the other claimants in this case, thinks her cancer was caused by the use of J&J’s baby powder.
The first rounds of treatment helped control the spread of her cancer, but a few months ago, Siobhan found another lump in her groin. She is now back in chemotherapy and surgeons say her cancer is no longer operable.
“They knew it was contaminated and still they sold it to new mums and their babies,” Siobhan says.
Ovarian cancer is caused by a combination of genetic, internal and external factors.
“The female reproductive tract is open to the external environment so that women can get pregnant,” says Prof Christina Fotopoulou, a leading gynaecological oncology surgeon at Imperial College London and a leader in the field of ovarian cancer.
“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 of ovarian cancer include persistent bloating, persistent pelvic or abdominal pain, feeling full quickly or an inability to eat, and an increased or urgent need to urinate.
Those who experience such symptoms frequently – more than 12 times a month – should see a doctor. Extreme fatigue, changes in bowel habits like constipation or diarrhoea, and vaginal bleeding after menopause are also signs you should see your GP.
Baby powder
Earlier this month, a court in the US state of Connecticut ordered J&J – and its successor entities – to pay $25m to a man diagnosed with terminal peritoneal mesothelioma after lifelong use of J&J baby powder. The jury in the trial found the pharmaceutical company negligent for selling asbestos-contaminated talc products.
This trial also included deposition testimony from Dr Steve Mann, former director of toxicology at J&J Consumer Products, who said he had made safety claims without reviewing any test data. Dr Mann conceded that he had received test results showing asbestos in the baby powder but chose not to inform management or regulators.
The judge noted that safer alternatives, such as cornstarch, were available and known to the company, yet J&J continued selling talc-based powder in the US until 2020 and in the UK until three years later.
Following the Connecticut judgment, J&J has denied wrongdoing and is expected to appeal.
J&J has moved its consumer health arm to a new company, called Kenvue, which said in a statement: “We sympathise deeply with people living with cancer. We understand that they and their families want answers - that’s why the facts are so important.”
It said 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”.
It said J&J’s baby powder “was compliant with any required regulatory standards, did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer”.
