Hannah Fletcher: exposing asbestos in cosmetics and talc

Medical evidence was obtained from pathologist Professor Gordon at Mount Sinai in New York, an internationally acclaimed research hospital. He analysed slides of Hannah’s peritoneum biopsy and found asbestos fibres and talc in the tissue.

He concluded that Hannah had substantial exposure to asbestos and talc which caused her mesothelioma.

As it  is very difficult to bring a successful legal case for exposure to asbestos contained in talc in the UK, Harminder worked with a New York attorney to commence court proceedings in the Supreme Court of the State of New York – New York County.

The cosmetic companies which Hannah had sued, tried to have Hannah’s case dismissed, on the grounds of forum non conveniens, which is Latin for “inconvenient forum”. This common law doctrine allows a court to dismiss a civil action, even though the forum or venue is proper and the court has jurisdiction over the case and the parties, where an appropriate and more convenient alternative forum exists in which to try the action. They argued that Hannah should bring her legal case in England and denied exposing her to asbestos.

The New York court rejected the cosmetic companies’ arguments and held that although Hannah lived in England, the cosmetic companies were located in New York. Their products were developed, manufactured and distributed from New York to England.

This judgment, made on 18th March 2020,  is groundbreaking in that it allowed not only Hannah to continue to pursue her case in New York, but it enabled other people in the UK who had been exposed to asbestos contaminated talcum powder, to bring cases in the US.

Thus, the judgment was held as a major win for mesothelioma victims.

After this judgment, the cosmetic companies which Hannah sued continued to deny exposing her to asbestos and the case was set down for a trial in New York.  

However, to avoid going to trial, the cosmetic companies reached a resolution with Hannah and Hannah agreed to a substantial financial settlement, which she was happy with.  No admission of liability was made by the cosmetic companies. 

Harminder and the asbestos team at Leigh Day are representing dozens of other clients who allege they have been exposed to asbestos contained in some talcum powder products and cosmetic products.

The reason talcum powder can become contaminated is because it is mined from the ground in numerous countries such as Italy, South Africa, China, and the USA. Asbestos is also mined from the ground and asbestos mines are sometimes very close or overlap with where talc is being mined and therefore contamination can occur.

Some cosmetic companies sell talcum powder on its own, or use it as an ingredient in makeup products such as eye shadow, blusher and face powder. It may also be used in foot powder. It is used because it absorbs moisture and prevents caking.

In the last few years, there have been many successful law suits in the US against Johnson & Johnson, which is a well-known manufacturer of talcum powder. However, it is not just Johnson & Johnson which has used contaminated talcum powder, but it is alleged that many well-known cosmetic companies have too.  

This is why many law suits are now being brought in the US against some cosmetic companies by UK-based individuals. In response to these kind of claims, the cosmetic companies often deny that their talcum powder is contaminated and they usually refer to the fact that they test the talcum powder for contamination. However, the test the cosmetic companies use is x-ray diffraction. This is a less sensitive test than transmission electron microscopy (commonly known as TEM), which can distinguish between asbestos and non-asbestos fibres and is accurate right down to 0.0005 f/ml.

In recent years, there have been recalls of asbestos contaminated cosmetic products. In 2017, it was discovered that asbestos contaminated talcum powder was contained in children’s makeup sold by Claire’s Accessories. In 2022, there was a product recall for Purity baby powder, by the Office for Product & Safety Standards. In 2021, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) carried out tests on some cosmetic products, which proved positive for asbestos.

The continued use of talcum powder is alarming, taking into consideration that there is an alternative product which the cosmetic companies could use. It is cornstarch and some companies already use this as a safe alternative.

Johnson & Johnson, fearing the legal cases being brought against them, has resorted to suing numerous experts who provide evidence in court regarding contaminated products. For example, Jacqueline Molline, a Doctor of Occupational Medicine and Epidemiology, has been accused of producing fraudulent research and Johnson & Johnson has accused her of being motivated in producing reports for money.

Similar tactics have been used in the UK against another client of Harminder’s. Dr Robin Rudd, who is recognised as one of the UK’s leading medical experts on asbestos diseases, instructed her, when Mr Bridle accused him of preparing court reports confirming chrysotile caused the mesothelioma, simply for fees.

Dr Rudd instructed Harminder to issue proceedings against Mr Bridle as his complaint was unfounded. Dr Rudd won his case and judgment was entered against Mr Bridle. The Judge found Mr Bridle to be dishonest and obstructive throughout the proceedings. Central parts of his evidence were rejected as false and dishonest and thoroughly disingenuous and designed to mislead. In addition, the complaint which Mr Bridle had made against Dr Rudd to the General Medical Council was dismissed.

Leigh Day Partner Harminder Bains commented: