More than 3,000 British citizens are taking health giant Johnson & Johnson to court, claiming its talc-based baby powder caused their cancer.
Plaintiffs also accused the company, which “they already knew,” and accused the company of a decades-long cover-up.
The landmark trial has been brought at the High Court in London, representing one of the largest product liability cases in British history.
According to the plaintiffs, Johnson and Johnson (J&J) had been selling baby powder contaminated with asbestos, a known carcinogen, for decades, knowing the product was dangerous and hiding the truth about it.
A lawsuit brought by KP Law on behalf of people who have developed ovarian cancer or mesothelioma is potentially worth hundreds of millions of pounds in damages.
It alleges that J&J had known since the 1960s that its talc contained asbestos fibers but hid this using internal company documents.
Allegation of a decades-long over-up
Court records say the lawsuit accuses J&J of concerted action to defend its lucrative product.
Michael Rawlinson KC, who represented the plaintiffs, said the company hid the facts, lobbied regulators to accept less sensitive testing techniques and funded research to minimize the risk of its talc.
A 1973 claim, made by way of a single internal company letter, purportedly stated: “Our baby powder contains talc fragments which could be classified as fibres. Sometimes traces of tremolite or actinolite in sub-trace amounts can be detected… – minerals that take the asbestos type in their fibrous form.”
The plaintiffs believe they should have issued warnings rather than further advertising the powder as clean and safe, namely to new mothers and subsequently African-American women.
The company denies all allegations
J&J and its consumer health spin-off Kenvue, which is now dealing with the allegations outside North America, strongly deny the allegations.
A spokesperson for Kenvue stated, “The safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder is supported by years of testing… did not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer.”
The company has stated that the internal documents mentioned in the case are incorrect and that negotiations on the issues of patents and testing standards were a regular part of the business.
Personal tragedies give rise to legal battles
The case is driven by strongly emotional narratives.
Janet Fuschillo, 75, one of the plaintiffs who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer seven years ago, reported that she had been spraying the powder on herself and her four children for nearly 50 years.
She told BBC that she had done her best to help them.
Patricia Angell is another plaintiff who claims her husband Edward died in 2006 from mesothelioma.
She claimed that although he worked as an electrician and had never been exposed to asbestos, he took Johnson & Johnson talcum powder daily.
Edwards’ autopsy report included the name of talc, she said, as well as asbestos strains in contaminated talc.
The court’s judgment will be very significant as it could set a major precedent for consumer product liability in the UK.
