Mesothelioma Asbestos Lawyer, DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Ben DuBose

Ben Dubose

Ben DuBose has over eighteen years of asbestos and serious personal injury litigation experience, successfully fighting for hundreds of mesothelioma victims in courts throughout the United States

FDA Affirms Asbestos Found in Cosmetics Targeting Teens

By

Asbestos found in cosmetics targeting teens and preteens continues to be a problem in a statement from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week. This affirmation is the result of testing performed by U.S. PIRG, a consumer advocate group, in both 2017 and 2018. These three branded cosmetic products from Claire’s and one sold by Justice, were among those tested in 2017 and again in 2018. The Claire’s products tested positive for tremolite asbestos in 2018 as did the Justice product.

Why is asbestos found in cosmetics harmful?

After years and decades of testing, it is proven than there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. Asbestos that is in solid form, such as shingles, left untouched is a potential danger, but asbestos that is loose, as found in powders and other cosmetics, is definitely dangerous. These products are easily inhaled or ingested which can lead to lung cancer and even mesothelioma – a deadly disease. In addition, these products targeted young girls, still growing and developing.

Claire’s rebuttal

In all testing, Claire’s contends there is no danger and that the U.S. PIRG report is faulty and misleading. In their independent testing, no asbestos fibers were found, however they have not disclosed their testing methodologies or results.

Claire’s spokeswoman, Melanie Berry said in a statement, “The FDA test reports have mis-characterized fibers in the products as asbestos, in direct contradiction to established EPA and USP criterion for classifying asbestos fibers.” “Despite our efforts to discuss these issues with the FDA, they insisted on moving forward with their release. We are disappointed that the FDA has taken this step, and we will continue to work with them to demonstrate the safety of our products.”

Claire’s filed for bankruptcy in the US in March 2018 and came out of it in October of 2018

FDA response

“Our lab is accredited by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology NVLAP program. The FDA used a lab on this accredited list for their cosmetics testing for asbestos (AMA Analytical Services) as well as another lab on the list, STAT Analysis Corporation.”

Why are cosmetic companies allowed to sell these products?

The FDA cannot force a company to remove asbestos-laden products because there are no laws requiring testing cosmetic products for safety. “The FDA is today announcing the results of these tests. Those tests confirmed the presence of asbestos in three of the product samples collected from Claire’s and one of the product samples collected from Justice. All suspect Justice products, including the one testing positive for asbestos, were previously recalled from the market in 2017. The FDA issued a Safety Alert today warning consumers to discontinue use of three Claire’s products: Claire’s Eye Shadows – Batch No/Lot No: 08/17; Claire’s Compact Powder – Batch No/Lot No: 07/15; and, Claire’s Contour Palette – Batch No/Lot No: 04/17 because they tested positive for asbestos.

In an FDA press release published on March 5, 2019, the following statement was made, “The FDA requested that Claire’s recall the products because they should not be used by consumers. Claire’s has refused to comply with the FDA’s request, and the agency does not have authority to mandate a recall. The FDA is therefore warning consumers not to use these products and will continue to communicate our safety concerns about them.“

Until laws requiring testing are enacted, the FDA requests cosmetic firms to take voluntary measures to register in the FDA’s Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program (VCRP.) The FDA also asks manufacturers to voluntarily report any negative effects involving cosmetic products.

While the FDA was told there are no more asbestos-tainted products in the Claire’s stores, they caution anyone who has them in their homes should stop using them.

Ben DuBose Named 2019 President of the Dallas Trial Lawyers Association

By

February 27, 2019
Dallas, Texas

Trial lawyer, Ben DuBose, took office in January as the 2019 president of the Dallas Trial Lawyers Association.

Founded in 1963, the Dallas Trial Lawyers Association is a volunteer body of Dallas area trial attorneys. DTLA’s mission: empowering and supporting Dallas trial lawyers in achieving justice for those who have been harmed. For more information about DTLA, visit www.dallastriallaywersassociation.org

“The Dallas Trial Lawyers Association is the only Dallas area bar association devoted exclusively to supporting Dallas trial lawyers. I’ve been a DTLA member my entire career, having served on the Board of Directors and as a chair of the diversity committee in more recent years,” says DuBose. “DTLA helps lawyers who help people. Critical to that is supporting and protecting one of our fundamental rights as Americans – the right to trial by jury.”

DTLA members enjoy up to 7 hours annually of continuing legal education (CLE) at monthly luncheons. This year, DTLA also offers 3 hours of free CLE breakfasts sponsored by the association’s mentorship committee. Several social events are also held throughout the year for association members. During 2019, DTLA will also continue to build on recent joint projects with other local bar organizations including the Dallas Bar Association, the Dallas Hispanic Bar Association, J.L. Turner Association and the Dallas Women Lawyers Association.

Mr. DuBose has 23 years of experience representing asbestos, personal injury and wrongful death victims as well as individuals in employment matters. DuBose Law Firm, PLLC enters its second decade with offices in Dallas at the historic Adelfa B. Callejo Building and New Orleans.

Media Contact:
Jane Zavala
jzavala@duboselawfirm.com
(214)389-8199

Sponsored by Attorney Ben K. DuBose licensed in TX, OK, & PA

DuBose Law Firm, PLLC
Principal office:
4310 N. Central Expressway
Dallas, TX 75206
(214)389-8199

Petition Filed by 15 Attorney Generals for EPA to Enhance Asbestos Reporting Rules

By

Attorney Generals in 14 states, plus the District of Colombia, have petitioned the EPA to enhance asbestos reporting rules. This would “address deficiencies” observed in the current chemical data reporting (CDR) asbestos rule. The petition asserts that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a mandate to perform asbestos risk evaluations and create regulations that deal with all unreasonable human or environmental risks.

Specific ways for the EPA to enhance asbestos reporting rules

• Close exemptions that exist in the CDR for naturally occurring substances and impurities.
• Extend the reporting requirements to processors of asbestos.
• Require notification of the substance’s use in articles.

Basically, this petition and an earlier one presented to the EPA in September of 2018, request all importers of asbestos and asbestos-containing products to inform the EPA of how and where they will be used. A current example of the need for these rules is a loophole that allowed Occidental Chemical Corporation–the largest asbestos importer– to import asbestos into the United States without notifying the EPA.

Supporters of the 2018 petition included the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), the American Public Health Association (APHA), Center for Environmental Health (CEH), Environmental Working Group (EWG), Environmental Health Strategies Center (EHSC), and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF). This petition was denied.

The dangers of asbestos

While asbestos is naturally occurring, that does not mean it is not a danger. It is a known carcinogen. Researchers believe approximately 40,000 Americans die annually from asbestos-related diseases. Diseases range from asbestosis, to lung cancer, and most deadly – mesothelioma. While many countries have banned its use, the US has not, though there are limitations.

2016 changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act

Loopholes were a concern when the EPA made changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act at the beginning of the Trump administration. In general, instead of all new uses coming before the EPA to assess risk, only 15 specific uses would bring about a federal assessment. These 15 uses are relatively common, so new uses could slip in without review.

Attorney General Maura Healey of Massachusetts asserted, “In recent years, tens of thousands have died from mesothelioma and other diseases caused by exposure to asbestos and other dangerous chemicals. If the Trump administration’s erosion of federal chemical safety rules continues, it will endanger our communities and the health of all Americans.”

EPA response

The EPA’s response, led by EPA’s acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler, said their plan would make it more difficult to use asbestos in products. The agency asserted that it “is aware of all ongoing uses of asbestos and already has the information that EPA would receive if EPA were to amend the CDR requirements.” Because the risk evaluations under the reformed TSCA must be completed by December, there was not time to change the rule and assemble the information in time – although there is a possible six-month extension.

Attorney generals’ response

The attorneys assert that the public has a right to know of dangers to their health and how to avoid and eliminate exposures. “Neither of these goals can be accomplished,” the attorneys said,” if EPA does not possess the necessary comprehensive data with respect to the manufacture (including import) and use of asbestos in the US on which to act – data that currently EPA is not collecting under the CDR, as EPA concedes” in its response and denial to the previous petitioners.

Going forward

The ADAO President and CEO, Linda Reinstein, expressed the thoughts of many when she said, “We are grateful and pleased that the states are showing leadership in holding the Trump EPA accountable for its reckless disregard of public health. When they denied ADAO’s petition, EPA irresponsibly refused to collect information that its own scientists need to do their jobs properly and that workers and the public need so they know whether they are being exposed to asbestos and can protect themselves from harm.”

The EPA response to this latest petition, filed on January 31, is required within 90 days.

Good News For Many As U.S. Cancer Deaths Declined

By

U.S. cancer deaths declined 27% overall in a period of 25 years – from 1991 to 2016. Good news for many, but this statistic reverses in some counties where there is a great deal of social and economic difference.

Why does the cancer death rate vary between counties?

The positive: In those 25 years, almost 2.6 million fewer people died due to cancer. This is primarily due to:

– Smoking reduction
– Earlier detection
– Improved treatments
– Environmental factors

Common cancers, such as breast, colon, lung, and prostate benefitted the most with a percentage decrease of 40%-breast, 53%-colon, 48%-lung, and 51%-prostate. So, why have some counties actually shown an increase in these cancers over the same length of time?

The negative: Rebecca Siegel, lead researcher and scientific director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society (ACS), suggests, “The largest gaps are for the most preventable cancers. For example, in the early 1970s colon cancer death rates were 20 percent lower in poor counties, and today they are 35 percent higher, when compared with people living in richer counties.”

Siegel also said, “Differences in wealth lead to differences in risk factors and less access to high-quality care for prevention, early detection and treatment.” Predictably, people in lower economic areas are less likely to go to a doctor as frequently for screening, which leads to cancer diagnoses at a more advanced stage.

“Health literacy is an issue”, stated Siegel. Where people of lower economic levels have access to screening, the cancer percentages per county even out with those of more wealth, but only if residents also are educated on how they can lower their cancer risks.

Environmental factors are important as well. Beginning in the early 1970s, many of the first environmental regulations were passed – aiming to curb public exposure to a myriad of industrial toxins. Additionally, geographic areas with heavy industry often tend to have a higher incidence of cancer rates.

Not all cancer deaths declined

Though the report is good news overall, other cancer deaths rose, such as liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, brain cancer, soft-tissue cancers, and oral cancers related to the human papillomavirus (HPV).

Siegel reminded that, even though lung cancer deaths decreased, “lung cancer still kills more Americans than breast, prostate and colon cancer combined.” Included in these lung cancers is malignant mesothelioma, a fatal disease across all economic groups that currently has no cure. Mesothelioma is actually a cancer of the lining of the lung caused by asbestos exposure. There are also several variants of lung cancer which can also be asbestos-related.

Great strides are being made, but cancer remains the second leading cause of death after heart disease. For some areas, as well with Hispanic, Asian American, and people under 80, cancer is still the primary cause of death. While the gap in cancer deaths has reduced between black and white populations, there is a growing gap based on wealthy versus poor counties.

What is next?

Obviously additional research and studies on more that the common cancers is necessary. There must be increased education initiatives in poor communities and communities in general.

Cancer deaths currently drop at 2% a year, but with increased availability of screening, health education within all communities, and ongoing research, this 2% could increase a great deal and cancer deaths become fewer with each year.

Dr. Harold Burstein, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and physician with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, stated this report shows “tremendous improvements” in therapeutic treatments for cancer.

Though there is still work to do, Burstein professes the medical researchers have made tremendous progress treating the disease. “For a long time, there was a nihilism that we are not winning the war of cancer,” he said. “We are winning the war.”

Should a Mesothelioma Patient Receive the Flu Vaccine

By

Since there are conflicting opinions on getting the flu vaccine, should a mesothelioma patient receive the flu vaccine? These patients in particular, along with the elderly, young children, and people living with some chronic health issues, should assess the pros and cons of receiving the vaccine.

What do the experts say?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), flu vaccines given with a needle cannot cause the flu. Even the vaccine given through a nasal spray, though it has a live virus, has been weakened and cold-adapted so it cannot infect a person as it would not survive the body’s warmth. Because there are a number of vaccines available, anyone with health problems should confer with their doctor to receive the correct one.

The CDC strongly encourages everyone to get the vaccine since flu is a serious, and sometimes deadly, disease. The risk of not getting the vaccine is greater than receiving it.

Currently, that means a shot or nasal spray every year as the virus is seasonal. Fortunately, there is a new type of vaccine on the horizon that may mean a vaccine only every few years.

The Universal Flu Vaccine

For decades, scientists searched for a universal vaccine that could eliminate the yearly shot and cover a variety of flu viruses. This is important, not only for patient convenience, but seasonal vaccine development means scientists have to guess what virus may be prevalent in any one year. A universal vaccine could eliminate that problem.

Currently, there are numerous vaccines in various stages of development. The one currently closest to release is the M-001 by BiondVax Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The company has recently enrolled its final participant so it can begin a Phase 3 trial.

Tamar Ben-Yedidia, the chief scientific officer at BiondVax, stated, “A universal flu vaccine is often referred to as “’The Holy Grail’ of influenza research, and like the Holy Grail, it is challenging to achieve.” He also said in a press release, “This challenging trial aims to show the extent to which M-001 protects people against influenza illness, regardless of the flu strain.” The M-001 vaccine is free of all viruses, but instead contains nine viral epitopes – the antibody binding sites on an antigen – which are recognized by the immune system.

Though the M-001 is currently furthest along in trials, all the flu vaccines use similar strategies. They target the least variable parts of the flu virus to produce immunity.

Why Should a Mesothelioma Patient Receive the Flu Vaccine?

As expressed by the CDC, a person with already weakened systems, such as the lungs, is more at risk of harm by getting the flu rather than getting a vaccine. Not only should the mesothelioma victim be vaccinated, but all those people normally around them.

Since a universal vaccine will mean a more successful and targeted answer to various flu viruses, chances of actually contracting the flu will be less. Those with mesothelioma already fight a serious disease and anything they can do to stay healthy will assist in that fight. This universal flu vaccine is one more tool to prolong life and ease the pain and discomfort of this detestable disease.