There have been many reports in the press in the last few weeks about talc being linked to cancer and, in particular, detailing a potential legal action being brought by a group of women against the biggest seller of talcum powder, Johnson & Johnson.
What is talc and why might it be carcinogenic?
Talc is a mineral that can be used in consumer products like baby powder, cosmetics, and other personal care items largely because of its absorbent properties. As a mineral, it is mined in areas where there is asbestos which means the talc can become contaminated. As we know, any products containing asbestos are banned in the UK and the UK has strict laws relating to cosmetics ensuring they are thoroughly tested before being placed on sale.
Johnson & Johnson have said that they have discontinued mineral based talc in the UK since last year, replacing it with cornstarch, however in the US, this was stopped in 2020 and the product is no longer sold there.
The World Health Organisation concluded in July 2024 that mineral based talc was ‘probably carcinogenic for humans’.
The link between talc and ovarian cancer has been the subject of numerous studies, with some suggesting that the prolonged use of talcum powder in the perineal area may increase the risk of ovarian cancer. In 2019, a review of research published in the journal Epidemiology suggested of the 32 studies carried out, 18 reported ‘an importantly elevated risk of ovarian cancer among talc users, compared with non-users’.
Other research has linked substantial exposure to talc products with mesothelioma, a type of cancer often affecting the lungs.
There is certainly a mounting body of evidence to support the contention. However, a further review published in April of this year (Critical Reviews in Toxicology) ‘did not support a causal association between occupational, medicinal or personal talc exposure and any cancer in humans’.
Whilst the scientific community remains divided on the issue, there is a growing number of lawsuits in the US and increasing public concern have led to heightened scrutiny of talc-based products globally, including in the UK.
Legal Implications
Clearly, the legal implications for manufacturers of talc-containing products in the UK are significant. Awareness of the potential risks of talc is growing and manufacturers are facing claims for failing to warn consumers about the potential health risks associated with their products.
Whilst companies like Johnson & Johnson, one of the most prominent manufacturers of talcum powder, maintain their view that independent research supports the safety of their product, they have moved away from using talc mineral to an all cornstarch-based product. They state that “decades of independent scientific analysis …confirms talc-based Johnson’s baby powder is safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer”.
In the US, the company faces claims from users and their survivors who state the talc products caused cancer and that the company has known for decades that asbestos has been present in its products but has consistently failed to warn consumers. The cases have seen billions of dollars awarded to the claimants and women in the UK hope to be equally as successful.
In England and Wales, manufacturers could be held liable under product liability law if it is proven that their products were defectively designed, manufactured, or lacked proper warnings regarding potential risks.
Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, a manufacturer can be held strictly liable if their product causes harm due to a defect. This means that, if talc is proven to cause cancer, affected individuals could seek compensation for their injuries. The claimants will need to show that the product was defectively designed or that the manufacturer failed to take reasonable steps to ensure safety. If it proceeds, the case would be the first of its kind brought against Johnson & Johnson in the UK and the largest pharmaceutical product group action in English and Welsh legal history.
Conclusion
It is clear that we are playing catch up with the US over the claims against Johnson & Johnson, but there appears to be increasing scientific evidence and now legal precedent to mount such claims. Asbestos injuries are ‘latent’, which means they do not show themselves in the form of different types of cancer until many years after exposure to the substance. There may be many cases now being diagnosed which will add to the growing group action against Johnson & Johnson.
