(Photo : Noam Galai/Getty Images for Trojan)
A recent lawsuit filed on Monday, September 9, claims that Trojan condoms pose safety risks due to the presence of toxic "forever chemicals," which are linked to cancer.
Trojan Condoms Allegedly Contain Cancer-Causing Chemicals
The class action, filed in Manhattan federal court, is led by plaintiff Matthew Goodman. He argues that Trojan products from Church & Dwight, marketed as "America's #1 Condom," are unsuitable for their intended use because they contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
According to Reuters, Goodman asserts that independent laboratory tests of Trojan Ultra Thin condoms purchased at a Manhattan pharmacy detected organic fluorine, a substance typically associated with synthetic PFAS chemicals. He believed the condoms were safe based on the label information.
If the label had revealed the presence of PFAS and its potential health risks, Goodman claims he would not have bought the condoms or would have paid much less for them.
The lawsuit seeks at least $5 million in damages for Trojan condom consumers across the country. This legal action follows a July report from the consumer advocacy blog Mamavation, which tested 29 popular condoms and lubricants and found several, including Trojan Ultra Thin condoms, with possible PFAS contamination.
What is 'Forever Chemicals' or PFAS?
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals," are found in a wide range of consumer and commercial items, such as cosmetics, non-stick cookware, and stain-resistant clothing. These chemicals are called "forever chemicals" because they do not break down easily in the environment or the human body.
Research links PFAS to various health issues, including higher cholesterol levels, lower birth weights, weaker vaccine responses, and an increased risk of kidney and testicular cancer, said NY Post.
The case is identified as Goodman v. Church & Dwight Co., filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York under case number 24-06813.
Related Article: Google Antitrust Ruling: Judge Pushes DOJ to Define Penalties by End of Year
