Mesothelioma Asbestos Lawyer, DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Asbestos safety regulations

Asbestos safety regulations

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.”

FDA Examined Asbestos Testing in Talc Products

By

It was 1971 the last time the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) examined asbestos testing in talc products in powders and cosmetics. The subject came to the forefront after finding traces of asbestos in several talc cosmetics and powders including a bottle of Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder, toy makeup kits for children from IQ Toys and other products, among them crayons and other makeup marketed to children and preteens over the past few years.

Why asbestos testing after almost 50 years?

The talc industry has long operated with little oversight from the FDA. In fact, manufacturers of talc products have no requirement to test for asbestos even now.

There has been a growing outcry from the public to ensure talc is clear of any asbestos as more and more people have pointed to asbestos-containing talc as the cause of various cancers. Recommendations were published last month from a panel of government experts. These experts were public health authorities and knowledgeable authorities on asbestos who defended plaintiffs who alleged contaminated talc products caused their cancers. They, and others, requested a “thorough review of the most effective and reliable ways to test for asbestos in cosmetic talc.”

Despite evidence to the contrary, industry groups criticize the recommendations asserting these would not improve safety. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) continues to defend the safety of its talc. They cited no asbestos was found in the samples provided to the labs hired by J&J. However, a 2018 Reuters report proved J&J knew for decades their raw talc and powders did test positive for asbestos, but they did not report that to the FDA.

How are asbestos and talc connected?

When mined, the two minerals are often found in the same areas. Collecting only talc is difficult. Both minerals have such small particles that they can be inhaled into the lungs and cause diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.

At the February 4th hearing, a government toxicologist said, “a wide range of spear-shaped mineral particles – including but not limited to asbestos – can start the development of cancer and should be part of any new testing regime.

What are EMPs?

While milling talc, the process breaks down contaminants into elongated mineral particles (EMPs). A senior adviser with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Christopher Weis, stated at the meeting, “All EMPs have the ability to trigger” development of cancer and other diseases. “Short EMPs are not conventionally counted or included in lab reports. As a toxicologist, this is unacceptable.”

On the other side, Mark Pollak COO of a 600 member trade group, the Personal Care Products Council, said counting more mineral particles as potentially harmful is not supported by science and could provide misleading reports.

What happens with asbestos testing now?

According to Dr. Linda Katz, director of the FDA’s office of cosmetics and colors, experts from the FDA and other agencies will publish a white paper after a continued study on these issues. The date of the white paper is unknown and there is no deadline for deciding if there will be new rules on testing.

Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), implored the FDA to advocate for more stringent testing and recommended a warning label be affixed to talc products to alert consumers to the possibility of asbestos present in the talc. Faber said at the hearing, “It’s time to end the honor system which has failed consumers for so long. Let’s not wait another 50 years to finally protect consumers.”

Talc Safety Topic of Congressional Hearings

By

Talc safety has been a concern for years. More recently, the clear possibility of asbestos contamination in talc has led to heightened concern about critical diseases, such as mesothelioma and ovarian cancer being caused by use of talc based products.  

Why is asbestos connected to talc safety?

Both talc and asbestos are minerals found in underground mines. Geologists know that these two minerals are often found intertwined in veins, making cross-contamination a real risk.

Talc everyday uses

Aside from baby powder, talc is used in a wide range of cosmetics for its moisture absorption and silkiness. Recently asbestos was found in four cosmetic products from Claire’s and Justice – both catering to makeup for children. It was also used for feminine hygiene, crayons, children’s toys, chewing gum, and a plethora of common products. There is no safe level of asbestos as its microscopic fibers can infiltrate lungs and harbor the potential for developing into lung cancer, asbestosis, and the deadly mesothelioma for fifty years or more.

Congressional hearings on talc safety

Concerns recently grew when the FDA found asbestos in several products, including baby powder. An initial hearing was conducted in March of 2019 over cosmetic talcum powder’s safety. This hearing specifically focused on talc’s connection with ovarian cancer.

The second hearing was launched when the FDA found asbestos in a sample of Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) baby powder in October 2019. Under consideration may be the use of warning labels or regulation of talc products.

Congress speaks

The hearing questioned the testing methods used.  William Longo, founder of Materials Analytical Service, stated, “Independent labs throughout the country and over the course of several decades have documented the presence of asbestos in consumer talc products, including Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder. The methods used in the past and today by the industry are not sensitive enough to detect trace levels of asbestos.”

While Longo once denied the presence of asbestos in talc, he stated there is now more sensitive testing. He also received access to thousands of internal J & J documents showing their knowledge of small amounts of asbestos in their talc for decades. There is no safe level, yet J&J kept this information from regulators and the public. Protecting the J&J brand and the public trust of their products was their focus. They now have paid out billions of dollars in thousands of lawsuits with thousands more in process.

The House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy tried to convince the CEO of Johnson & Johnson, Alex Gorsky, to testify at the hearing. He turned down the invitation.

Charles M. Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, said Gorsky’s refusal made sense as the “CEO and his advisers probably figured that the downside was greater to testifying than not.”

Suit Filed on the EPA to Strengthen Asbestos Regulations

By

Eleven attorneys general covering the District of Colombia and ten states went to court with a suit filed on the EPA for more stringent asbestos regulations. Though the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a restrictive rule on asbestos in April, they did not ban the deadly substance. The suit filed would force the EPA to proclaim a new, and more thorough, asbestos reporting rule after the EPA denied a petition to gather more data on asbestos.

Asbestos danger leads to suit filed on EPA
No safe level of exposure

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a release addressing the suit filed on the EPA, “It is widely acknowledged that asbestos is one of the most harmful and toxic chemicals known to humankind. While it’s troubling that we must once again take the EPA to court to force the agency to do its job, we won’t pull any punches. There’s too much at stake to let the EPA ignore the danger that deadly asbestos poses to our communities.”

Dangers of asbestos

Asbestos was widely used in a multitude of situations, including construction, mining, shipbuilding, and fireproofing. Use of the material was mostly banned by the end of the 1970s. However, it still exists in homes, businesses, schools, and commercial buildings constructed before 1980. There is no safe use, so proponents for a complete ban have been active for many years.

While its benefits for insulation and fireproofing made it a prime component of construction, its tiny fibers – when disturbed – are easily inhaled by workers or anyone in the vicinity. Asbestos still kills thousands of people each year – some who were exposed 50 years ago due to its long latency period. This can show up in mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis.

The April EPA rule

This rule was the first EPA action on asbestos use in 30 years, but critics claim that it could still allow some asbestos products to be reintroduced in the market. Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention stated, “If there is any unreasonable risk, the EPA will regulate, and our regulation could take the form of a ban.” But Democrats want to see action – meaning a full ban, not more rules that they perceive as loopholes to asbestos use.

Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney at the Environmental Working Group, wrote, “This new rule makes it more difficult for industry to resume some abandoned uses of asbestos, but that is a half-step at best.” An outright ban “is the only way the public can trust industry will never again be able to use this dangerous material that has literally killed tens of thousands of Americans.”

States in suit filed on the EPA

The ten states suing include: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

Two Decades After Ban, Asbestos Still Kills 5,000 Britons Each Year

By

Not surprisingly, two decades after the ban, asbestos still kills 5,000 Britons each year. That’s because symptoms of disease often don’t show up until 20 to 40 years – or more – after exposure. This long exposure time is one of the reasons it is often not recognized as an imminent danger, yet the fibers inhaled many years in the past are poised to show up as lung cancer, asbestosis, or the deadly mesothelioma after the initial exposure is just a memory.

Asbestos still kills 5,000 Britons each year

The long exposure time is only one reason it is still killing after all these years. Though the mineral was outlawed 20 years ago in Britain, asbestos still exists in government, commercial, and residential buildings built before 1999. While not a threat when undisturbed, these buildings often are at an age when renovation, or even demolition, is required. If this work is not done by an authorized abatement company, the possibility of exposure from the dust created is high. To cut corners, renovators and do-it-yourself handymen often skip this critical step and the countdown to possible diseases in the distant future starts again.

The report from the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) verified that people today are still being exposed – often because of non-compliance with regulations. In the past year, over 130 British companies or individuals were ordered to stop work because of rule-breaking.

As Bev Bessinger, IOSH chief executive said, “It is unacceptable that 20 years on from asbestos being banned in Britain, organisations are still potentially putting at risk the lives of employees, their families, and other members of the public. Thousands die in Britain every year from cancers like mesothelioma, while many more are diagnosed with it. All this is preventable through good occupational safety and health. It is time for organisations to wake up and realise how dangerous asbestos is. There are no excuses.”

Dr. Nick Hopkinson, medical director at the British Lung Foundation, reinforced this message by confirming, “Currently the only treatments available are aimed at slowing the progression of the disease and improving quality of life. This devastating disease is preventable, and the dangers of asbestos are well known. It’s vital companies are vigilant and take the proper precautions to protect people from the life-threatening dangers of asbestos, and take urgent action if asbestos has been found.”

Asbestos still kills 15,000 Americans each year

This number of deaths is not acceptable. The United States has not taken the necessary steps to ban asbestos, even though it has been banned in 55 countries. Though some uses are no longer allowed in the US, others are – especially in commercial applications. We know homes and other buildings constructed before the 1980s have a high likelihood of asbestos in areas such as drywall, insulation, siding, roofing, tile mastic, and insulation around pipes. When will the US stop new uses of this deadly mineral?

Brakes on the Toxic Substances Control Act

This act showed promise to finally ban, or strictly control, asbestos as it was identified as one of the ten high risk chemicals set for EPA evaluation. Unfortunately, the ground rules for the EPA’s evaluation under the Trump administration has softened the likelihood of a ban and shockingly, may perhaps even allow new uses of the fiber.

A legacy of death for the future

Like those in the U.K. who work on demolition or renovation of pre-1980 era buildings, workers and their families can be exposed to asbestos if not careful to have suspicious areas checked by an abatement professional. Click here to see a comprehensive FAQ checklist of asbestos products, reporting information, and testing guidelines. Since there is no outright ban, new asbestos-containing materials can still be imported into the US. As seen in the British report, once a ban is in place, people contracting asbestos-related diseases continue for decades into the future. Until importation and new uses are stopped completely, there is no end in sight for the victims of asbestos.