{"id":267270,"date":"2025-10-17T08:40:21","date_gmt":"2025-10-17T08:40:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/?p=267270"},"modified":"2025-10-17T08:40:21","modified_gmt":"2025-10-17T08:40:21","slug":"thousands-in-uk-open-case-against-johnson-johnson-over-alleged-talcum-powder-cancer-link-johnson","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/thousands-in-uk-open-case-against-johnson-johnson-over-alleged-talcum-powder-cancer-link-johnson\/","title":{"rendered":"Thousands in UK open case against Johnson & Johnson over alleged talcum powder cancer link | Johnson…"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Thousands of people are taking legal action against pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson, claiming it knowingly sold asbestos-contaminated talcum powder in the UK.<\/p>\n

As many as 3,000 people have alleged that either they or a family member developed forms of ovarian cancer or mesothelioma from using Johnson\u2019s Baby Powder, and are seeking damages at the high court in London.<\/p>\n

Lawyers for the group said in court documents filed on Thursday that Johnson & Johnson, along with current and former subsidiaries Johnson & Johnson Management and Kenvue UK, should all be held liable.<\/p>\n

They said J&J \u201cconcealed\u201d the risk to the public for decades, having replaced talc with corn starch<\/a> in its baby powder in the UK since 2023.<\/p>\n

A spokesperson for Kenvue, which was formerly J&J\u2019s consumer health division and now has responsibility for talc-related claims outside the US and Canada, said the talc used in baby powder complied with regulations, did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer.<\/p>\n

Talc is a naturally occurring mineral that is mined from the ground.<\/p>\n

Michael Rawlinson KC, for the group of people bringing the claim, said in court documents that \u201cthere exist very few, if any, commercially exploited talc deposits in the world which do not contain asbestos and that all of the mines supplying the defendants contained asbestos\u201d.<\/p>\n

He also said that reports from such mines, as well as its own research alongside existing scientific literature, would have informed J&J about asbestos contamination.<\/p>\n

Despite this, the company \u201csuppressed information that might indicate that baby powder was contaminated with asbestos\u201d, the barrister added.<\/p>\n

He also said J&J \u201clobbied regulators\u201d to enable the continued sale of its product and sponsored studies in an effort to \u201cdownplay the dangers\u201d to human health.<\/p>\n

J&J therefore \u201cacted in bad faith, to protect the reputation and profit-making potential of baby powder and the goodwill attached to their name\u201d, Rawlinson said.<\/p>\n

J&J denies the allegations, including any claims it knowingly sold baby powder contaminated with asbestos.<\/p>\n

Janet Fuschillo, who is one of the people bringing the case, said she used J&J\u2019s baby powder since the 1960s, and that she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer seven years ago.<\/p>\n

The 75-year-old said: \u201cI used talc on myself and all four of my children \u2026 I used talc when I changed nappies, after baths, all the time, for close to 50 years.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a source of great concern and anger that I used talc on my children.\u201d<\/p>\n

Patricia Angell said her husband, Edward, died in 2006 aged 64, a few weeks after being diagnosed with mesothelioma.<\/p>\n

skip past newsletter promotion<\/a><\/p>\n