Johnson & Johnson Faces UK Lawsuit Over Alleged Asbestos in Baby Powder
A major legal battle has erupted in the United Kingdom as more than 3,000 people have filed a lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J), accusing the company of knowingly selling baby powder contaminated with asbestos for decades.
The case, led by KP Law against Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Kenvue Ltd, claims the company was aware as early as the 1960s that its mineral-based talcum powder contained asbestos fibers — specifically tremolite and actinolite — both linked to deadly cancers such as mesothelioma and ovarian cancer.
According to internal company memos and scientific reports obtained by the BBC, J&J allegedly failed to disclose the contamination to the public and regulators while promoting its baby powder as a symbol of purity, gentleness, and safety.
Allegations of Concealment and Misleading Marketing
Court filings allege that J&J not only ignored evidence of asbestos contamination but also launched aggressive marketing campaigns to reinforce the image of its baby powder as safe for infants and mothers.
The company denies all allegations, insisting that its talc products “met every regulatory standard, contained no asbestos, and do not cause cancer.” J&J stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the UK in 2023, after discontinuing it in the United States in 2020.
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs estimate potential damages could reach hundreds of millions of pounds, possibly making this one of the largest product liability lawsuits in British history.
Talc, Asbestos, and the Health Risk Debate
Talc, a naturally occurring mineral, is often mined near asbestos deposits. When asbestos fibers contaminate talc, they can enter the lungs or reproductive system and cause cellular damage over time. Asbestos exposure has long been associated with cancers such as mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, and lung cancer.
The claimants allege that J&J knew about the contamination risk but chose not to act. One 1973 internal document reportedly stated:
“Our baby powder contains talc fragments classifiable as fiber. Occasionally sub-trace quantities of tremolite or actinolite are identifiable…”
Another document from the same period allegedly showed executives discussing a patent method to remove asbestos fibers — and the need to “keep the whole thing confidential rather than allow it to be published in patent form.”
Kenvue responded that these were internal technical discussions about possible future regulations and not proof that asbestos was present in products sold to consumers.
Influence on Regulators and Testing Standards
The UK lawsuit also cites documents from the early 1970s suggesting J&J executives lobbied the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to adopt less sensitive testing standards, allowing traces of asbestos to go undetected.
The claim alleges J&J pushed for a tolerance of up to 1% asbestos contamination, arguing that more sensitive detection was unnecessary. This, lawyers argue, allowed the company to maintain claims of purity and safety while downplaying risks.
Kenvue disputes this interpretation, stating that the referenced documents were part of hypothetical discussions with regulators and taken out of context.
Decades of Targeted Marketing
Internal marketing documents from the 1970s through the 2000s show J&J’s marketing shifted over time — first focusing on new mothers and later targeting African American women.
A 2008 internal email reportedly acknowledged growing safety concerns, saying:
“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 and keep it in the baby aisle.”
Kenvue said this discussion referred to the risk of inhalation and asphyxiation, not asbestos exposure, noting that product warnings were already printed on labels.
The Human Toll: Cancer and Broken Trust
Many of the UK claimants are women who developed ovarian cancer or mesothelioma after years of using J&J’s baby powder.
One such claimant, Siobhan Ryan, 63, from Somerset, recalls using the product for years, trusting it because her mother had done the same.
“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 told the BBC.
In 2022, Siobhan was diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer. After undergoing multiple rounds of chemotherapy and major surgery, she is still fighting the disease.
“They knew it was contaminated and still they sold it to new mums and their babies,” she said tearfully.
Expert Opinion: How Talc Could Contribute to Cancer
According to Professor Christina Fotopoulou, a leading gynecological oncologist at Imperial College London, ovarian cancer can develop due to genetic, environmental, or external factors.
“Any harmful external agents that disrupt cell balance can contribute to the mutations that lead to cancer,” she explained.
Persistent bloating, pelvic pain, and urinary urgency are among the key early warning signs of ovarian cancer, doctors say. Early detection remains critical for survival.
Recent Verdicts in the US
Earlier this month, a Connecticut court ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $25 million to a man who developed terminal mesothelioma after lifelong use of the company’s talc-based powder.
Testimony revealed that a former J&J toxicology director admitted to making safety claims without reviewing test results, some of which indicated asbestos contamination. The court noted that safer alternatives, such as cornstarch, were available but ignored.
J&J continues to deny wrongdoing and is appealing the verdict.
Company’s Response and Future Implications
Following mounting lawsuits, J&J restructured its consumer health business into Kenvue Ltd, now a separate entity. Kenvue issued a statement saying:
“We deeply sympathize with people living with cancer. We understand they want answers, and that’s why the facts are so important.”
The company maintains that independent laboratory and regulatory reviews have consistently confirmed its baby powder is asbestos-free and compliant with global safety standards.
Nonetheless, the UK lawsuit adds to growing international scrutiny over the company’s conduct, marking a critical test of corporate accountability and consumer trust in one of the world’s most recognizable brands.