Thousands in the UK sue Johnson & Johnson talcum powder

Published: 16 October 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Thousands of people in the United Kingdom have launched legal action against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, claiming the company knowingly sold talcum powder contaminated with asbestos, resulting in serious health issues, including ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. The group, numbering around 3,000, has filed claims in the High Court in London seeking compensation for themselves or family members affected by the alleged contamination.

The lawsuit names Johnson & Johnson alongside current and former subsidiaries, including Johnson & Johnson Management and Kenvue UK, arguing that all entities should be held accountable. Legal representatives for the plaintiffs allege that the company concealed potential health risks for decades, even though it replaced talc with corn starch in its Baby Powder products in the UK from 2023 onward.

A spokesperson for Kenvue, which now handles talc-related claims outside the US and Canada, denied the allegations, stating that the talc used in baby powder complied with regulations, contained no asbestos, and does not cause cancer. Talc, a naturally occurring mineral, has been mined globally for decades, with some deposits naturally containing asbestos fibres.

Michael Rawlinson KC, representing the claimants, told the court that almost all commercially exploited talc deposits contain asbestos and that the mines supplying Johnson & Johnson were no exception. Rawlinson alleged that the company suppressed information indicating potential asbestos contamination, lobbied regulators to continue selling the product, and sponsored studies aimed at downplaying the health risks. He argued that the company “acted in bad faith to protect the reputation and profit-making potential of baby powder.”

Among those bringing claims is Janet Fuschillo, 75, who reported using Johnson’s Baby Powder on herself and her four children for nearly five decades. She was diagnosed with ovarian cancer seven years ago and described the ongoing impact on her and her family, expressing both concern and anger over her children’s long-term exposure.

Another claimant, Patricia Angell, spoke of her husband Edward, who passed away from mesothelioma in 2006 at age 64. Angell stated that Edward had no known occupational asbestos exposure but regularly used Johnson & Johnson’s talc, which was cited in his autopsy report alongside asbestos strains. She described the profound loss experienced by her family, noting that Edward was “robbed” of 19 years of life.

The NHS confirms that mesothelioma is almost always caused by asbestos exposure, often forming in the lungs after inhalation of microscopic fibres. Rawlinson highlighted that typical methods of applying baby powder, such as shaking or sprinkling from the bottle, could suspend clouds of talc in the air for prolonged periods, increasing the likelihood of inhalation.

In response, a Kenvue spokesperson reiterated that the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder is supported by years of independent testing and scientific research. They stated: “The high-quality cosmetic grade talc used in Johnson’s Baby Powder was compliant with all required regulatory standards, did not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer. We sympathise deeply with people living with cancer and understand the desire for answers, which is why factual evidence must guide the discussion.”

The case represents one of the largest coordinated legal challenges against a pharmaceutical company in the UK relating to alleged asbestos contamination. It raises significant questions about corporate responsibility, public health, and regulatory oversight. Lawyers for the claimants are seeking not only compensation for those affected but also greater accountability for the company’s historic handling of talc products.

The proceedings are expected to include extensive expert testimony, including scientific and medical evidence regarding the presence of asbestos in talc and its potential link to cancer. Observers note that the case could set a precedent for similar claims and may prompt broader scrutiny of cosmetic and consumer products in the UK and beyond.

As the legal process unfolds, thousands of claimants await clarity on whether long-standing allegations of asbestos exposure will be recognised by the courts. The outcome may have wide-ranging implications, influencing both corporate practices and public confidence in consumer product safety.