For decades, Johnson & Johnson, a company founded in 1886 with the motto "Safety First," assured consumers of the safety and purity of its talc-based products, notably its iconic Baby Powder. However, a trove of internal documents and numerous lawsuits have painted a starkly different picture, revealing a prolonged history of Johnson & Johnson's awareness of asbestos contamination in its talc and a failure to disclose this critical information to the public and regulators.

Key Chronological Events:

1. 1957-1958: A consulting lab reports asbestos-like tremolite in talc from Johnson & Johnson’s Italian supplier.
2. 1971-1975: At least three tests from different labs find asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s talc.
3. 1976: Johnson & Johnson assures the FDA that no asbestos had been detected in samples from 1972 to 1973, omitting positive asbestos tests from the same period.
4. 1971-2000s: Internal documents show that Johnson & Johnson’s talc and finished powders sometimes test positive for asbestos.
5. 2018: A St. Louis jury awards $4.69 billion to 22 women who claimed asbestos-tainted Baby Powder caused their ovarian cancer.
6. 2020: Johnson & Johnson ceases selling talc-based Baby Powder in the United States and Canada.
7. 2023: Johnson & Johnson ceases selling talc-based Baby Powder in the United Kingdom.

Johnson & Johnson's awareness of asbestos contamination dates back to at least 1957-1958 when a consulting lab reported the presence of asbestos-like tremolite in talc from the company’s Italian supplier. Despite these early warnings, Johnson & Johnson continued to claim its products were asbestos-free. Between 1972 and 1975, at least three tests from different labs found asbestos in the company’s talc, with one test indicating "rather high" levels. Yet, Johnson & Johnson chose not to disclose these results to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The company’s efforts to manipulate the narrative around its talc safety extended into the regulatory arena. In 1976, as the FDA considered limits on asbestos in cosmetic talc, Johnson & Johnson assured the agency that no asbestos had been detected in any samples from 1972 to 1973. This assertion conveniently omitted the positive asbestos tests from the same period. Internally, company executives and scientists were aware that ensuring talc free from any asbestos traces was virtually impossible, yet they continued to present their products as safe.

The concealment unravelled when thousands of plaintiffs, many of them women with ovarian cancer, began to claim that Johnson & Johnson's talc caused their diseases. These lawsuits brought to light internal documents showing that from 1971 to the early 2000s, Johnson & Johnson’s talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for asbestos. This evidence included reports of asbestos contamination from scientists, mine managers, and company executives who expressed concerns privately but failed to act publicly.

Johnson & Johnson research director DeWitt Petterson warned the company that producing pure talc was impossible.

Significant legal battles began to shift the tide against Johnson & Johnson. In 2018, a St. Louis jury awarded $4.69 billion to 22 women who claimed that asbestos-tainted Baby Powder caused their ovarian cancer. This was a watershed moment, broadening Johnson & Johnson’s potential liability from just mesothelioma cases to also include ovarian cancer. Despite some juries rejecting similar claims, the mounting evidence and resulting verdicts have been a substantial blow to the company’s reputation.

In stark contrast to their long-standing defence, Johnson & Johnson finally ceased selling talc-based Baby Powder in the United States and Canada in 2020 and in the United Kingdom in 2023. This action came far too late for many victims who had relied on the company’s assurances of safety for years. The company maintained its stance that its products were safe, blaming the losses on "junk science" and juror confusion, but the internal documents told a different story.

Johnson & Johnson's delayed action and the eventual removal of talc from its products highlight a significant failure in corporate responsibility. Despite knowing the risks, the company prioritised its market image over consumer safety, leading to severe consequences for thousands of users. The irony of their motto "Safety First" is underscored by decades of hidden dangers, now linked to cancers that have devastated countless lives. This claim serves as a stark reminder of the importance of corporate transparency and the dire consequences of putting profit over people. Please join us if you or your family have been affected.

Read supporting documents here

Providing the FDA favorable results showing no asbestos and withholding or failing to provide unfavorable results, which show asbestos, is a form of a misrepresentation by omission.-

Judge Ana Viscomi

| June 2023