About 3,000 lawsuits have been filed in Britain against the American pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, accusing it of selling products containing talc contaminated with asbestos – a known carcinogen – without warning users of the resulting health risks. According to lawsuit documents submitted to the Supreme Court in London, the cases being heard by the court The total value could reach more than £1 billion, in one of the largest health cases against a pharmaceutical company in Europe.
Accusations: “Hiding risks and misleading consumers.”
Plaintiffs’ lawyers accuse Johnson & Johnson of knowing for decades that there was asbestos contamination in some of the talc deposits used in manufacturing baby powder, yet it continued to sell the product and promote it as safe for daily use by children and women. Attorney Michael Rawlinson said in court that the evidence indicates that all of the mines that supplied the company with talc contained varying percentages of asbestos. Asbestos, and that the company “hid information from the public and pressured regulatory authorities to downplay the importance of health risks.”
Tragic stories behind the lawsuits
Among the plaintiffs is Janet Fuccillo, 75, who said she has used Johnson & Johnson baby powder since the 1960s and was diagnosed with ovarian cancer seven years ago. She added:
“I was using talc on myself and my four children… It never occurred to me that it could cause cancer.”
As for Patricia Angel, the company was accused of causing the death of her husband, Edward, in 2006 after he contracted mesothelioma, a fatal cancer directly linked to exposure to asbestos. She said:
“He was a healthy man who worked as an electrician and had never been exposed to asbestos in his work, but post-mortem examinations confirmed the presence of asbestos fibers in his lungs that came from Johnson’s powder.”
The company denies the accusations and defends its product
For its part, Kenvue – the former consumer arm of Johnson & Johnson and responsible for issues outside North America – categorically denied these allegations, confirming that its products meet regulatory specifications and do not contain asbestos. The company said in a statement:
“We extend our deepest sympathy to those affected by cancer, but scientific facts are important. Experiments conducted by independent laboratories, universities and international health authorities have proven that the talc used in our products is safe and does not cause cancer.”
Long scientific debate about talc and asbestos
Talc is a natural mineral extracted from the earth, and its deposits are often found near asbestos deposits, making contamination possible unless strict purification processes are followed. Plaintiffs’ lawyers assert that Johnson & Johnson knew of this geological connection but “chose to ignore it in order to preserve its profits and business reputation.” The documents indicate that the company replaced talc with atomic starch (Corn). Starch) was sold in some markets after increasing issues, but it did not stop selling talc-based products globally until 2023 – three years after it was withdrawn from the markets of America and Canada.
A giant company in global trouble
This development comes in light of the continuing wave of similar cases against the company in the United States, where it faces tens of thousands of complaints from women who claim that its talc products caused them ovarian cancer. The company has tried more than once to reach collective financial settlements to avoid long trials, but it failed after the American courts rejected the bankruptcy plan it proposed to protect itself from legal liability.
Demands for company accounting
Prosecutors in Britain confirm that the company acted in bad faith over decades by “funding studies that reduced the danger of asbestos,” and influencing the decisions of global regulatory authorities to continue selling the product. Those affected are demanding huge financial compensation and an “official apology” from the company to all those who were injured by its products. This case is expected to be pivotal in determining the company’s legal future within European markets, after it Its sales in the United States have already declined.
