High Court Throws Out Bid to Ban Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder

Kenya's High Court has dismissed a petition that sought an immediate halt on the sale of talc-based Johnson & Johnson baby powder, ruling that the person who brought the case failed to meet the required standard of proof to demonstrate that the product is carcinogenic or poses a clear and present danger to Kenyan consumers.

The case was filed by Frederick Bikeri, who argued that allowing the powder to remain on Kenyan shelves violated citizens' constitutional rights to life, health, access to information, and consumer protection. Bikeri anchored his petition on a 2024 World Health Organization classification listing talc as "probably carcinogenic to humans," alongside extensive litigation in the United States linking J&J products to ovarian cancer, and outright bans on the powder imposed by other African nations.

The court was unconvinced. In its ruling, the bench stated plainly that "the petitioner has failed to establish, to the required standard of proof, that the talc-based Johnson & Johnson baby powder sold in Kenya is carcinogenic." Judges noted the complete absence of documented cancer cases in Kenya that could be connected to the product and found no evidence of contamination in the local market, dismissing the concerns raised as "speculative and unsubstantiated."

The court also took issue with how the petition had been structured, holding that the dispute should first have been pursued through the country's established consumer protection mechanisms and product standards bodies before being escalated into a constitutional matter. Judges indicated that bypassing those channels undermined the very foundation of the case.

The Kenya Bureau of Standards had not been standing idle on the matter. Following a 2019 alert from the United States Food and Drug Administration, KEBS had already moved to tighten oversight of baby powder imports, rolling out mandatory asbestos testing and stricter inspection requirements for products crossing the border — regulatory steps the court took note of when assessing whether existing frameworks were functional.

Johnson & Johnson maintained that its decision to phase out talc-based powder in favour of cornstarch alternatives was driven entirely by commercial considerations rather than safety concerns. The multinational has consistently denied that its talc products endanger consumers.

The ruling closes a significant chapter in a case that drew fresh public attention to how imported personal care products are regulated in Kenya. Though the petition was dismissed, it has reignited debate about the rigour of product safety checks at the border and the avenues available to ordinary Kenyans when they suspect a widely used consumer product may be harming their health.