From asbestos-contaminated talc to ultra-processed food, when does profit outweigh public health?

Walk through any supermarket or pharmacy and you'll see thousands of products marketed as safe, convenient or even healthy.

But here's the uncomfortable question:

If growing evidence suggests some products may contribute to serious illness, why are they still being manufactured and sold?

It's a question worth asking.

Because history has shown us that products can remain on shelves for decades before governments, regulators or the courts step in.

The Johnson & Johnson Case: A Wake-Up Call

One of the most high-profile examples is the legal battle surrounding Johnson & Johnson's talc-based baby powder.

For years, thousands of women claimed that regular use of the company's talcum powder contributed to their ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson has consistently maintained that its talc products are safe and do not cause cancer.

However, in 2026 the company agreed to a proposed $5.5 billion settlement covering around 76,000 lawsuits relating to ovarian cancer claims. The agreement is intended to resolve nearly all remaining litigation, although the company continues to deny liability and says the settlement is a commercial decision rather than an admission that its products caused cancer. (Reuters)

Whatever your view of the science or the legal arguments, one question remains:

If tens of thousands of families believed they had been harmed, why did it take decades for meaningful action?

We've Seen This Story Before

History is full of products once considered safe that later proved harmful.

• Cigarettes
• Asbestos
• Leaded petrol
• Certain pesticides
• Some pharmaceuticals

In nearly every case, warning signs emerged long before regulations changed.

Often, industry challenged the science.

Sometimes governments were slow to act.

Meanwhile, consumers carried on buying products they assumed had already been proven safe.

Now Let's Talk About Food

Today, the spotlight has shifted towards ultra-processed foods (UPFs).

These products now make up a significant proportion of the modern Western diet.

Examples include:

• Sugary breakfast cereals
• Fizzy drinks
• Packaged cakes and biscuits
• Flavoured crisps
• Processed meats
• Confectionery
• Many ready meals

These aren't simply foods that have been processed.

Ultra-processed foods are industrial formulations often containing ingredients rarely found in a domestic kitchen, alongside emulsifiers, flavour enhancers, colours and other additives designed to maximise taste, shelf life and profitability.

What Does the Evidence Say?

A growing body of research links higher consumption of ultra-processed foods with increased risks of:

• Type 2 diabetes
• Obesity
• Cardiovascular disease
• Depression
• Anxiety
• Poor sleep
• Earlier death from all causes

One of the largest umbrella reviews published in The BMJ found consistent associations between higher ultra-processed food intake and more than 30 adverse health outcomes. (BMJ)

The UK Government's own scientific reviews also conclude that higher intakes of ultra-processed foods are associated with increased risks of obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, several cancers and poorer mental health, while recognising that more research is needed to understand exactly why these relationships exist. (GOV.UK)

It's important to be balanced. Association does not automatically prove causation, and not every ultra-processed food carries the same level of risk. Recent research also suggests that the overall nutritional quality of the diet remains highly important, even when processed foods are included. (thetimes.com)

But that doesn't remove the bigger issue.

Why Are We Waiting?

If the evidence is becoming increasingly convincing...

Why are foods linked to poorer health still marketed so aggressively?

Why are children surrounded by products high in sugar, salt and unhealthy fats?

Why are supermarket promotions dominated by foods that nutrition experts tell us to eat less of?

The Royal College of Physicians recently argued that regulation has failed to keep pace with the evidence and warned that commercial interests continue to influence food policy. (Royal College of Physicians)

The Business Model We Rarely Talk About

Here's the uncomfortable reality.

Many companies have a legal duty to maximise returns for shareholders.

Health isn't always the primary objective.

Profit is.

That doesn't mean every manufacturer acts irresponsibly.

Nor does it mean every processed product is dangerous.

But history shows that commercial success and public health do not always align.

When illness develops over decades rather than days, it becomes much harder to identify a single cause or hold anyone accountable.

Consumers Deserve Better

Most of us assume that if something is on a supermarket shelf, it has been thoroughly proven to be safe.

That isn't always how regulation works.

In many cases, action follows years—or even decades—of accumulating evidence, public concern and legal challenges.

By then, millions of people may already have been exposed.

The Bigger Question

Perhaps the question isn't whether Johnson & Johnson or ultra-processed food manufacturers are uniquely responsible.

Perhaps the real question is this:

Why does our regulatory system so often wait until significant harm is alleged or widespread concern has developed before taking stronger action?

Surely prevention should come before compensation.

Consumers shouldn't need billion-pound settlements or decades of litigation before difficult questions are asked.

Final Thoughts

This isn't about fear.

It's about transparency.

It's about expecting higher standards from the companies that profit from our trust.

And it's about recognising that our health is influenced not only by the choices we make, but by the products we're encouraged to buy every single day.

Perhaps it's time we stopped asking whether we can trust manufacturers.

Instead, we should ask whether the systems designed to protect us are doing enough.

 

Suggested References

Johnson & Johnson Talc Litigation

• Reuters – J&J reaches sweeping talc deal that could end decade of litigation: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/johnson-johnson-announces-55-billion-settlement-talc-lawsuits-2026-07-27/
• The BMJ – Johnson & Johnson talcum powder cancer case is heard in UK High Court: https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj.s850
• The BMJ – Johnson and Johnson will discontinue talc-based baby powder worldwide: https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o2046

Ultra-Processed Foods

• The BMJ – Ultraprocessed foods, Palantir, and political donations: how governments enable health system exploitation: https://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s305
• The BMJ – Over 30 adverse health outcomes linked to ultra-processed foods: https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/consistent-evidence-links-ultra-processed-food-to-over-30-damaging-health-outcomes/
• UK Government (Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition) – Processed Foods and Health: Rapid Evidence Update: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/processed-foods-and-health-sacns-rapid-evidence-update
• Royal College of Physicians – Ultra-processed and under-regulated: Why ultra-processed foods lack regulation despite evidence of harm: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/news-and-media/news-and-opinion/ultra-processed-and-under-regulated-why-ultra-processed-foods-lack-regulation-despite-evidence-of-harm/

Further Reading

• NOVA Food Classification: https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova
• World Health Organization – Healthy Diet: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet