J&J sued for concealing cancer risks in its baby powder
What's the story
Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is facing a major lawsuit in the UK, with 3,000 people accusing the company of knowingly selling baby powder contaminated with asbestos. The legal action centers on internal memos and scientific reports that allegedly show J&J was aware of the dangers as early as the 1960s. The lawsuit claims that J&J's mineral-based talcum powder contained fibrous forms of talc (tremolite and actinolite), both classified as asbestos and linked to deadly cancers.
Information
J&J 'aggressively marketed' product as symbol of purity
The lawsuit alleges that despite knowing the minerals were directly linked to cancers, J&J never warned consumers on its baby powder packaging. Instead, it launched aggressive marketing campaigns portraying the product as a symbol of purity and safety.
Legal parallels
UK case mirrors extensive litigation in US
The UK lawsuit against J&J mirrors extensive litigation in the US, where multiple lawsuits have been filed and claimants have won billions in damages. However, the company has successfully appealed in some cases. Lawyers for the claimants estimate that damages sought in the UK could run into hundreds of millions of pounds, potentially making it Britain's largest product liability case.
Mineral concerns
Internal documents show asbestos risk known in 1960s
The talc used in J&J's baby powder is a naturally occurring mineral often mined near asbestos deposits. Asbestos minerals in their fibrous form are associated with cancer. The lawsuit claims J&J had identified asbestos in its baby powder as early as the 1960s. An internal document from 1973 allegedly states: "Our baby powder contains talc fragments classifiable as fiber. Occasionally, sub-trace quantities of tremolite or actinolite are identifiable..."
Patent talks
Patent for method to remove asbestos discussed in 1973
In 1973, J&J executives also discussed the potential value of a patent for a method to remove asbestos fibers from talc. The lawsuit claims they considered keeping this information confidential rather than publishing it in patent form and letting the world know. Instead of issuing warnings on its product, the lawsuit alleges that J&J sought to conceal the risk for decades while maximizing profits.
Marketing tactics
Marketing team told to maximize sales despite health risks
The lawsuit claims that J&J's marketing team discussed how to maximize sales despite knowing there were carcinogenic fibers in the baby powder. In 1970s and 1980s, US marketing focused on selling pure and gentle powder for newborn babies. However, an internal email from 2008 allegedly discussing branding said: "The reality that talc is unsafe for use on/around babies is disturbing... I don't think we can continue to call it baby powder," referring to asphyxiation risks rather than cancer or asbestos.
Regulatory impact
J&J allegedly pushed FDA to accept lower sensitivity standards
The lawsuit also claims that from the early 1970s, J&J executives pushed the US regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to accept lower sensitivity standards so that tests didn't detect small amounts of asbestos fibers. Documents cited in the UK lawsuit allegedly show J&J advocated for talc testing standards tolerating up to 1% asbestos contamination, arguing more sensitive detection methods were unnecessary.
Company stance
What has been J&J's response?
In response to the allegations, J&J has said that its baby powder "was compliant with any required regulatory standards, did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer." The company has also moved its consumer health arm into a new company called Kenvue. After a recent US court ruling ordering J&J to pay $25 million over asbestos-contaminated talc products, the company denied wrongdoing and plans to appeal.