Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is facing legal action from thousands of people in the UK who are accusing the global healthcare giant of knowingly selling talcum powder contaminated with asbestos.<\/p>\n
More than 3,000 people allege they or a family member developed forms of ovarian cancer<\/a> or mesothelioma from using Johnson’s baby powder between 1965 and 2023.<\/p>\n A lawsuit has been filed by KP Law at the High Court in London seeking damages against J&J and Kenvue UK, which was split from the former in 2023 and now operates as a separate business.<\/p>\n The lawsuit alleges J&J’s product was contaminated with carcinogenic fibres, including asbestos, and the firm concealed the risk to the public for decades.<\/p>\n J&J stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the US in 2020<\/a>, switching to a cornstarch product. It did the same globally in 2023<\/a>.<\/p>\n Kenvue said in a statement that J&J baby powder “did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer”.<\/p>\n J&J is separately facing tens of thousands of lawsuits in America, where claimants allege they were diagnosed with cancer after using baby powder and other talc products.<\/p>\n Last week, J&J was ordered to pay $966m (\u00a3720m) to the family of a woman who died from mesothelioma, one of the largest awards against the firm, although the amount could be reduced on appeal.<\/p>\n Damages awarded by UK courts are generally more restricted.<\/p>\n What is the legal claim being made?<\/p>\n Talc is a naturally occurring mineral which is mined. But Michael Rawlinson KC, who is representing the claimants, said in court documents that “there exist very few, if any, commercially exploited talc deposits in the world which do not contain asbestos”.<\/p>\n He also alleged that reports from such mines, J&J’s own research, and existing scientific literature would all have informed J&J about asbestos contamination.<\/p>\n Despite this, Mr Rawlinson claimed the company “suppressed information that might indicate that baby powder was contaminated with asbestos”, “lobbied regulators” to enable the continued sale of its product, and sponsored studies to “downplay the dangers” to human health.<\/p>\n Read more from Sky News: ‘We were told talc was good for you’<\/p>\n Janet Fuschillo, one of the claimants, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer seven years ago.<\/p>\n The 75-year-old said she used J&J’s baby powder since the 1960s: “I used talc on myself and all four of my children because we were told it was pure, and it was good for you.”<\/p>\n Patricia Angell said her husband Edward died in 2006, aged 64, a few weeks after being diagnosed with mesothelioma.<\/p>\n “He would come home from work and shower every day and use J&J’s talc,” she said.<\/p>\n “Talc was mentioned on Edward’s autopsy report, along with asbestos strains found in contaminated talc.”<\/p>\n Mesothelioma, a form of cancer, is almost always caused by asbestos exposure, according to the NHS, and it commonly forms in the lungs after people inhale the microscopic fibres.<\/p>\n
J&J agrees to pay $8.9bn<\/a>
Talcum powder lawsuit approved<\/a><\/p>\n