FDA to hold public meeting on testing for asbestos in talc
Send a link to a friend
[February 04, 2020]
By Chad Terhune and Lisa Girion
SILVER SPRING, Md. (Reuters) - For the
first time in nearly 50 years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
will examine asbestos testing for talc powders and cosmetics at a
hearing on Tuesday.
Regulators are taking a closer look after finding asbestos, a known
carcinogen, in several talc cosmetics and powders, including a bottle of
Johnson & Johnson’s well-known Baby Powder. Citing those FDA results,
some U.S. lawmakers and consumer advocates have called for stricter
safety regulations to protect public health.
J&J, the market leader in talc powders, has defended the safety of its
talc. The company said tests by labs it hired found no asbestos in
samples from the same bottle the FDA examined - except for some the
company attributed to contamination from a lab air conditioner.
In a statement, the company said it looks forward to the FDA’s "thorough
review of the most effective and reliable ways to test for asbestos in
cosmetic talc."
The hearing on asbestos testing in talc, the FDA’s first since 1971,
will focus on testing standards recommended by a panel of government
experts. The recommendations, published last month, embrace positions
held by public health authorities and experts for plaintiffs who allege
that contaminated talc products caused their cancers.
After hearing from the government panel, FDA officials will take public
comment from consumer advocates, industry representatives and testing
experts.
For decades, the cosmetic talc industry has largely been allowed to
police itself with little oversight from the FDA. Although talc and
asbestos are similar minerals often found together in the ground, the
FDA has never required manufacturers to test for the carcinogen.
In a written report, the government panel said the talc industry’s
standard test methods have "long-recognized shortcomings in specificity
and sensitivity."
One of the most significant recommendations from the expert panel is
that mineral particles found in talc products small enough to be drawn
into the lungs, even those the industry would not call asbestos, should
be counted as potentially harmful. The expert panel said both asbestos
and look-alike minerals are suspected of causing "similar pathological
outcomes," so the "distinction is irrelevant."
[to top of second column]
|
A bottle of Johnson and Johnson Baby Powder is seen in a photo
illustration taken in New York, February 24, 2016. REUTERS/Mike
Segar/Illustration/File Photo
The U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency have limited exposure to asbestos on
the job and in the air to reduce cancers since the 1970s when the
hazard was well established. A Reuters report in December
showed that, during the same period, the FDA downplayed health
concerns, including possible asbestos contamination, in talc powders
and cosmetics and deferred again and again to manufacturers.
David Michaels, a former OSHA administrator during the Barack Obama
administration, said he welcomed the public discussion because even
small amounts of asbestos are unacceptable in easily-inhaled
consumer products.
"I hope the national attention given to this issue will help
insulate FDA from pressure from corporations that manufacture
cosmetics and personal care products, who are likely to oppose the
newly-recommended testing protocols," said Michaels, a professor at
the George Washington University School of Public Health and author
of a book, "The Triumph of Doubt," which examines corporate
influence on science.
The Personal Care Products Council, a cosmetics trade group,
declined to comment before the hearing.
FDA spokeswoman Monique Richards said no decisions are expected to
be made Tuesday, and the focus will be on gathering public feedback.
The FDA has not announced a timetable for deciding whether it will
pursue rules on testing.
The increased scrutiny on this issue follows a 2018 Reuters report
which showed that although J&J knew for decades its raw talc and
powders sometimes tested positive for asbestos, the company did not
report those findings to the FDA.
(Reporting by Chad Terhune)
[© 2020 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2020 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |