Thousands of people have filed a class-action lawsuit against the American pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson (J&J). Consumers in the UK allege that J&J's Johnson's Baby Powder causes cancer.
According to reports from British media outlets such as The Guardian and the BBC on the 16th (local time), approximately 3,000 UK consumers have filed a claim for damages at the High Court in London, alleging that J&J intentionally concealed the product's risks.
The product in question is Johnson's Baby Powder, a powder applied to areas prone to heat rash or irritation to keep the skin dry and comfortable.
The consumers seeking legal action allege that J&J knowingly sold baby powder containing asbestos-contaminated talc for decades. Talc is a silicate mineral made of magnesium that is ground into a powder. Asbestos is a fibrous silicate mineral known to be harmful to health when inhaled.
The UK consumers claim that they or their family members developed conditions such as ovarian cancer and mesothelioma after using Johnson's Baby Powder.
Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that develops in the mesothelium, the thin layer of tissue that covers the lungs (pleura), abdomen (peritoneum), and heart (pericardium). It is known to be caused by inhaling airborne asbestos fibers, which can become lodged in the lungs. The consumers allege that asbestos released into the air when using the baby powder caused mesothelioma and other related diseases.
The consumers are seeking compensation, alleging that J&J concealed the risks of asbestos for decades. According to KP, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, the total damages claimed are estimated to exceed £1 billion (approximately 1.9098 trillion won).
Since 2023, J&J has been producing its baby powder using cornstarch instead of talc. The British consumers stated that J&J only stopped selling its talc-based baby powder in the UK and worldwide three years after sales were halted in the US and Canada due to the ingredient controversy.
The consumers also alleged that J&J lobbied regulatory authorities and sponsored studies that downplayed asbestos risks to continue selling the baby powder. They claim the company acted maliciously to protect its reputation and profits.
J&J denies the allegations. The company maintains that the safety of its baby powder has been consistently proven through tests conducted by research institutions and health authorities around the world. It rebutted the claims, stating that the talc in its powder complies with regulatory standards and is asbestos-free.
The plaintiffs' lawyer countered J&J's argument, stating, “There are very few commercially exploited talc deposits worldwide that do not contain asbestos,” and that “the mines supplying talc to the defendant also contain asbestos.”
