Johnson Baby Talcum Powder: A major lawsuit has been filed in the UK against the popular pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J). The company is accused of knowingly selling baby powder that contains asbestos, a substance linked to deadly cancers. The legal claim is being led by KP law, and involved around 3,000 people. The company is alleged to be aware for decades that its talc-based baby powder contained cancer-causing fibers. Decades of Warnings IgnoredBBC reports that as per the court papers, J&K knew about this in as early as in the 1960s. The company was aware that the talc contained fibrous forms of tremolite and actinolite, both of which are classified as asbestos when in fibrous form. However, the company failed to warn its consumers and promoted the product as 'safe' and 'pure'. The documents accessed by the BBC from 1973 notes that the company acknowledged, "our baby powder contains talc fragments classifiable as fibre. Occasionally sub-trace quantities of tremolite or actinolite are identifiable". However, no public memo was issued, instead the company's executives discussed it to keep the findings confidential. One memo also reported, "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.”However, J&J currently is denying all such claims and said that the baby powder "was compliant with all regulatory standards, did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer.” The company’s UK sales of talc-based powder ended in 2023.Who Is Safe, Who Is Not?The lawsuit against J&J alleges that instead of warning the customers, the company continued to maintain the product's wholesome image of 'purity'. During the 1970s and 80s advertisements, the powder was shown as gentle and safe for newborns. By 1990s and early 2000s, the company shifted its marketing focus toward African American women. In an email from 2008, one employee wrote: "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, J&J’s consumer health spinoff, said the email was taken out of context, claiming it referred to the known risk of asphyxiation, not cancer, reported the BBC. Pressure On RegulatorsSeveral documents cited in the legal claim that the company also worked to influence the US regulators. From the early 1970s, the company pushed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to accept testing standards that were less sensitive. This meant that smaller amounts of asbestos could go undetected. The company proposed tolerance levels of asbestos up to 1%, in talc, and said that sensitive tests were unnecessary. This allowed the company to continue with their claim that the product is 'asbestos-free'. All these claims have been dismissed by Kenvue, saying that the document in reference is a 'hypothetical calculation' requested by the FDA. What Is The Human Cost?Many of the claimants have either developed or lost loved ones to ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related illnesses.One such claimant, Siobhan Ryan, a 63-year-old from Somerset, recalls using J&J baby powder on her children, just as her mother had used it on her. “It smelt nice and was soft and lovely. I thought I was doing my best for them,” she told the BBC.Years later, she was diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer. After rounds of chemotherapy, major surgery, and a near-fatal case of sepsis, Siobhan is still undergoing treatment. “They knew it was contaminated and still they sold it to new mums and their babies,” she said.The consequences are beyond the UK. The same is on going in the United States, where multiple lawsuits against the company have already been filed. Earlier this month, a Connecticut court ordered J&J and its successors to pay $25 million to a man diagnosed with terminal peritoneal mesothelioma after lifelong use of the baby powder. The jury found J&J negligent, noting that safer alternatives like cornstarch were available but ignored.During that trial, a former J&J toxicology director admitted he had made public safety assurances without reviewing any test data and failed to report results that showed asbestos in the product.What Is The Company's Take?While the company said that it "sympathizes deeply with people living with cancer", it maintained its stance that the powder is safe to use and that it "did not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer." However, lawyers in the UK say damages could reach hundreds of millions of pounds, making this potentially the largest product liability case in British history.
Email
Google
Facebook Email Google Facebook