Mesothelioma Asbestos Lawyer, DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Asbestos legal issues

Asbestos legal issues

Johnson & Johnson Discontinue Talc-Based Baby Powder

By

After producing baby powder since 1894, Johnson & Johnson will discontinue talc-based baby powder in the United States and Canada. Years of charges their baby powder contained traces of asbestos brought lawsuits and public distrust. J&J suffered a loss in market value along with lessening sales. In 1980, J&J began selling a cornstarch version of the powder in response to the criticism. They will continue to market that product.

The connection between asbestos and talc

Talc is a mineral mined underground, as is asbestos. They are often found in close proximity to each other. The problem occurs because they can be mingled in the mining process.

Asbestos in any amount is not safe. For some women, the continual use over time led to ovarian cancer and for others, mesothelioma, a fatal disease.

Why are there lawsuits?

A congressional investigation uncovered internal documents showing Johnson & Johnson knew for over 50 years their baby powder contained asbestos. This knowledge was not passed on to consumers. Juries in many cases found Johnson & Johnson guilty, awarding large amounts to the plaintiffs. Testing found asbestos in many of the samples. However, Johnson & Johnson testified their testing did not find any trace in the same samples.

Though the product was marketed toward babies, most baby powder was purchased for adult women. As of this March, Johnson & Johnson had 19,400 lawsuits pending which involved the talc baby powder.

J&J decision to discontinue talc-based baby powder

Even as they announced the discontinuation, J&J stood by their assertion that there is no asbestos in their talc. They cite lessening sales caused by misinformation and litigation advertising. It appears they determined the best course for the brand was to remove this baby powder from their lineup of products.

__________

In a statement, J&J said it “remains steadfastly confident in the safety of talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder.”

Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Association, published this remark, “Americans should be able to trust they are safe from asbestos. Johnson & Johnson spent decades misleading the public to think their often asbestos-contaminate baby powder was safe when they knew it was not. Today’s announcement that they will stop selling this potentially deadly product is a victory for public health. A small and influential group of chemical companies in America still rely on asbestos and have stood in the way of a national ban of this deadly substance. We can’t wait for them to follow J&J and see the error of their ways. Congress must pass the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act (ARBAN) and ban asbestos once and for all.”

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.

Health Risks from Baby Powder Use

By

Johnson & Johnson, along with other companies, were handed a jury verdict for failing to warn consumers about possible health risks from baby powder use. The plaintiffs, a couple who alleged the wife’s pleural mesothelioma was contracted from baby powder use, were awarded $25.75 million by a California jury. As a frequent bowler, the plaintiff used the powder for years on her hands and in her shoes. She also was exposed to asbestos while watching her husband work on his car.

Mesothelioma is a deadly cancer almost always caused by exposure to asbestos.

Mining of talc

Talc and various forms of asbestos are often co-located, making the mining of talc without including asbestos in the final product, a difficult task. A study published in the “International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health,” October, 2014 showed asbestos fibers in the cosmetic talc samples tested. The types found were in various combinations of asbestiform anthophyllite, asbestiform tremolite, and chrysotile fibers. One specific, and unnamed, brand of cosmetic talcum powder was used in all tests.

“Our findings indicate that historic talcum powder exposure is a causative factor in the development of mesotheliomas and possibly lung cancers in women.”

Johnson & Johnson’s defense

The Johnson & Johnson company continues to assert that their products do not contain asbestos and will continue to fight in court.

Carol Goodrich, spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson said, “We are disappointed with the verdict and we will begin the appeals process. We will continue to defend the safety of our product because it does not contain asbestos or cause mesothelioma. Over the past 50 years, multiple independent, non-litigation driven scientific evaluations have been conducted by respected academic institutions and government bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and none have found that the talc in Johnson’s Baby Powder contains asbestos.”

Plaintiff’s response

David Greenstone, an attorney for the plaintiff stated, “We are extremely pleased that our clients have found a measure of justice, although nothing can truly compensate them for what they have lost. Our clients are hopeful that this verdict can further bring light to this unbelievable example of corporate misconduct.” Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder “has contained asbestos for decades. People need to know about this.”

Health risks from baby powder and other talc-based products

Lobbyists and employees of companies mining or using talc in their products continue to promote the safety of their products to both the government and consumers.  However, talc may be present not only in talcum powder, but in eye shadow, blush, foundation, and many other cosmetic products to this day.

For safety’s sake, look for products marked talc free because according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), “There is no ‘safe’ level of asbestos exposure for any type of asbestos fiber. Asbestos exposures as short in duration as a few days have caused mesothelioma in humans.”

Bill Proposed to Create Mesothelioma Registry

By

On July 29, 2015, U.S. Rep. John Katko, R-N.Y. introduced H.R. 3284, a bipartisan bill to create a mesothelioma patient registry. This bill is named the Mary Jo Lawyer-Spano Mesothelioma Patient Registry Act of 2015 in honor of Mary Jo Lawyer-Spano, who along with her father contracted mesothelioma and died from its effects. Her sister, Meg Meccariello, is continuing to battle the disease.

Why Now?
Mesothelioma awareness has increased over the past few years. With the slow incubation of the disease – often many decades from exposure – people are now facing mesothelioma diagnoses from exposures in the 1950s through 70s. These are primarily baby boomers and their parents, a large group of people, though only about 3,000 people a year are diagnosed. With such a low incidence of this disease, this has not been addressed until now.

How Will This Help?
There are a number of uses proposed for this registry. Among those are to:
– enhance and expand infrastructure and activities for tracking the epidemiology of mesothelioma patients
– collect, consolidate, and report on health information on patients diagnosed with mesothelioma with respect to–
• treatment outcomes, including patient longevity; and
• the number of patients receiving treatment for mesothelioma by hospital
– to better describe the incidence and prevalence of mesothelioma in the United States
– to facilitate further research on mesothelioma
– to examine factors, such as environmental and occupational factors, that may be associated with mesothelioma
– to better outline key demographic factors, such as age, race or etnicity, gender, and family history
– to make the information in the registry anonymously available to the public to enhance research on, and prevention and treatment of, mesothelioma.

Congressional co-sponsors of this bill are U.S. Reps Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill, Chris Collins, R-N.Y., Pete King, R-N.Y., Joe Kennedy III, D-Mass., Betty McCollum, D-Minn., and Leonard Lance, R-N.J.

On the day the bill was introduced, it was referred to committee and has only a 3% prognosis of being enacted. Interested parties should contact their local representatives to increase the chances of this worthwhile registry becoming a reality.