Talc litigation · Evidence guide
The talc cases sit between disputed product history and evolving cancer evidence
Plaintiffs allege talc body powder caused cancer. Johnson & Johnson denies that its cosmetic talc causes cancer or contains asbestos, while IARC now classifies talc as probably carcinogenic to humans.
What the lawsuits allege
The federal actions include allegations that people developed ovarian or uterine cancer after perineal use of talc-based body powder. Those allegations are coordinated in MDL 2738 in the District of New Jersey before Judge Michael Shipp.
JPML listed 68,914 actions pending on August 3, 2026. That number measures federal docket activity, not proven injuries or outcomes.
The company and IARC reach different conclusions
Johnson & Johnson says its cosmetic talc is safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer. That is the company's direct position, not a court finding.
IARC classified talc as probably carcinogenic to humans, Group 2A, based on limited human evidence, sufficient animal evidence and strong mechanistic evidence. IARC also noted that reporting bias and possible asbestos contamination could not be ruled out confidently in much of the human evidence.
What remains individual
A hazard classification does not prove that a particular product caused a particular cancer. Product identity, route and duration of use, diagnosis, competing exposures and the law governing the claim remain separate questions.
Verification ledger
Primary sources
Talcum Powder Products transfer order
The official centralized-allegation record.
MDL 2738, pages 1-5
IARC Monographs Volume 136: Talc
IARC's hazard classification and its evidentiary limits.
Talc evaluation · Evidence limitations
Baby Powder portfolio statement
Johnson & Johnson's direct position on cosmetic talc.
Company safety position
Pending MDLs
The dated federal docket snapshot.
Page 1, MDL 2738