talcum powder ovarian cancer link

Johnson and Johnson accused of covering up evidence associating carcinogenic properties in its talc products

Sign-up to one of our many Group Actions today - use our quick and easy form to start your claim for compensation.

Begin Your Group Action Claim Today
Please note we are unable to proceed with claims involving BMW, Dacia, Ford, Honda, MINI, Mercedes-Benz & Mitsubishi.
The deadline for claims for EA189 engines passed in 2018, and claims settled in 2022. We are unable to take any claims on for vehicles with EA189 engines. We are able to take on claims for newer engine types that are NOT EA189 engines.
Our claims team will call you back at a time that's suitable to you.
Your privacy is extremely important to us.
Information on how we handle your data is in our Privacy Policy
solicitors regulation authority

Johnson and Johnson accused of covering up evidence associating carcinogenic properties in its talc products

Thousands of claims are being made against Johnson and Johnson for the allegedly harmful properties their famous talc powder is said to have had on users worldwide.

Johnson and Johnson have been vehemently denying the allegations, citing scientific studies to prove there is no cancer risk related to their talc. However, one lawsuit made on behalf of numerous woman suffering from ovarian cancer blames Johnson and Johnson for giving them ovarian cancer, and alleges the company has been lying and conspiring to hide the truth for decades.

Johnson and Johnson accused of misleading consumers

Johnson and Johnson are accused of having, “procured and disseminated false, misleading, and biased information regarding the safety of the products to the public and user influence over governmental and regulatory bodies regarding talc contamination with asbestos, asbestiform fibres, and other harmful constituents.”

The lawsuit asserted that multiple scientific studies found links between talc and cancer, citing 23 studies dating back to 1971 that suggest the same. To the shock of the court, the lawsuit also gave evidence that the mine supplying Johnson and Johnson with their talc apparently contains asbestos and other dangerous carcinogens. The claim continued to state that current testing, of which the major pharmaceutical company conducts, is incapable of detecting harmful cancer-causing properties in its talc products.

“Thus, the talc used by defendants to manufacture the products is not now, nor has it ever been, free from asbestos and asbestiform fibers,” reads the lawsuit.

Johnson and Johnson deny accusations

Johnson and Johnson are persistently denying all of these claims, stating their confidence in their talc products as free of asbestos and saying that it always has been.

“Historical testing of samples by the FDA, numerous independent laboratories, and numerous independent scientists have all confirmed the absence of asbestos in our talc products.” It asserted that, “Johnson’s Baby Powder has been around since 1894 and it does not contain asbestos or cause mesothelioma or ovarian cancer.”

Thousands claiming in massive lawsuit

The 5,500 claimants behind 4,800 lawsuits disagree with Johnson and Johnson’s denial!

Most of these claims were made on the basis that Johnson and Johnson allegedly failed to adequately warn women about the risks of developing ovarian cancer from their staple talc baby powder products.

On 20th October, Johnson and Johnson managed to get the Judge to overturn a verdict in excess of £300m in a case where one woman claimed the company’s talc powder gave her cancer. The Judge allowed Johnson and Johnson’s request for a re-trial because of alleged errors and jury misconduct.

The claimant has since tragically passed away, but the appeal will still be allowed. Her lawyer stated that, “we will continue to fight on behalf of all women who have been impacted by this dangerous product.”

The content of this post/page was considered accurate at the time of the original posting and/or at the time of any posted revision. The content of this page may, therefore, be out of date. The information contained within this page does not constitute legal advice. Any reliance you place on the information contained within this page is done so at your own risk.