The company is working through nearly 12,000 product liability lawsuits related to alleged consumer harm from long-term use of its baby powder and continues to deny prior knowledge of any contamination. It declined to comment further on the Reuters report.


In 1957 and 1958, according to Reuters, the earliest mentions of tainted J&J talc came from a consulting labthat described contaminants in talc from J&J's Italian supplier as fibrous and "acicular," or needle-like, tremolite. That's one of the six minerals that in their naturally occurring fibrous form are classified as asbestos. At various times from then into the early 2000s, reports by scientists at J&J, outside labs and J&J's supplier yielded similar findings. The reports identify contaminants in talc and finished powder products as asbestos or describe them in terms typically applied to asbestos, such as "fiberform" and "rods."


In 1976, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was weighing limits on asbestos in cosmetic talc products, J&J assured the regulator that no asbestos was "detected in any sample" of talc produced between December 1972 and October 1973. It didn't tell the agency that at least three tests by three different labs from 1972 to 1975 had found asbestos in its talc – in one case at levels reported as "rather high," according to Reuters.


Most internal J&J asbestos test reports Reuters reviewed do not find asbestos. However, while J&J's testing methods improved over time, they have always had limitations that allow trace contaminants to go undetected—and only a tiny fraction of the company's talc is tested.


The World Health Organization and other authorities recognize no safe level of exposure to asbestos. While most people exposed never develop cancer, for some, even small amounts of asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later. Just how small hasn't been established. Many plaintiffs allege that the amounts they inhaled when they dusted themselves with tainted talcum powder were enough.