A Reuters investigation published Friday charges that Johnson & Johnson, a multi-billion dollar company known for its healthcare products, knew for decades that its iconic talcum baby powder “was sometimes tainted with carcinogenic asbestos,” but concealed the information from regulators and the public.

Asbestos, “the name given to six minerals that occur naturally in the environment as bundles of fibers,” has been used in North America’s automotive, construction, and shipbuilding industries since the late 1800s, according to the National Cancer Institute. The World Health Organization (WHO) warns that “all types of asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx and ovary, and asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs).”

Because asbestos sometimes occurs in the earth along with talc, contamination is possible. Reuters—along with attorneys for more than 11,000 plaintiffs currently suing Johnson & Johnson, claiming the company’s products caused their cancer—examined memos, internal reports, and other confidential documents as well as deposition and trial testimony.

That mountain of evidence, according to Reuters, revealed

While, over the past two decades, some legal challenges claiming that Johnson & Johnson products were tainted with asbestos and caused cancer have been unsuccessful, three recent developments seem to signal a shift. A pair of cases in New Jersey and California saw significant awards for mesothelioma patients, and a “watershed” verdict in St. Louis expanded the company’s potential liability.

Outlining the St. Louis case, Reuters explained:

“When people really understand what’s going on,” said Mark Lanier, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, “I think it increases J&J’s exposure a thousand-fold.”

Johnson & Johnson, as Reuters noted, “has dominated the talc powder market for more than 100 years, its sales outpacing those of all competitors combined… And while talc products contributed just $420 million to J&J’s $76.5 billion in revenue last year, Baby Powder is considered an essential facet of the healthcare-products maker’s carefully tended image as a caring company—a ‘sacred cow,’ as one 2003 internal email put it.”