Saturday, July 3, 2021 - Nine out of ten Americans would be shocked and dismayed to learn that the health, beauty, and baby care products they use every day, sometimes many times per day, on their babies and themselves have not been tested or even reviewed for safety by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For reasons bordering on conspiratorial, the FDA has allowed the cosmetics industry to be self-regulating for the better part of the last century and to never itself tested talc for harmful chemicals or minerals using the most sensitive, modern, and state of the art testing equipment available. That was until last year when billion-dollar jury awards sparked the FDA director‘s interest to bypass the recommendations of the Cosmetics and Toiletries Council (CTC) now the Personal Care Products Council, and test Johnson‘s Baby Powder for asbestos using a more accurate testing method that employs high-resolution transmission electron microscopes, the same equipment used and recommended to be standardized throughout the cosmetics industry by Georgia-based scientist Dr. William Longo, a frequent and effective expert witness for plaintiffs with cancer suing Johnson & Johnson. When asked by a Congressional Committee investigating talc‘s asbestos contamination, Dr. Longo told congressmen and women that the methods that AMA, the researchers contracted by the FDA and Johnson & Johnson to test asbestos, were insufficient and would ensure asbestos could never be found statistically speaking. When asked about the existing talc asbestos testing methods under oath by Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, Dr. Longo suggested the FDA‘s and Johnson & Johnson‘s method of testing talc was insufficient. "Ms. Tlaib: Yes. So does AMA Labs, the lab FDA has consistently contracted with since 2009, employ what you consider the most sensitive asbestos testing methods available? Mr. Longo: No, they‘re not. Their 2010 work for FDA, their detection limit was approximately 10,000--excuse me--10 million asbestos fibers per gram of talc to find one fiber. Ms. Tlaib: Wow. Would FDA have detected asbestos in these samples earlier in the time if they used more sensitive detection methods? Mr. Longo: In my opinion, yes." Dr. Longo told the Congressional Subcommittee: "The laboratories used by the talc industry, and recently by FDA contract laboratory, have very poor analytical sensitivity, with detection limits of approximately 10 million to 14 million asbestos fibers per gram. That means that for the microscopist to detect a single asbestos fiber in the talcum powder sample, that needs to be between 10 million to 14 million asbestos fibers present per gram." Visit talcum powder cancer lawsuit to learn more.
Consumers are awakening to the realities of the dangers of using products that contain talc. Cosmetic products sold to women and teenage girls through Claire‘s stores have turned out to be contaminated with asbestos and the companies have pulled them from the market. Other health, baby, and beauty care products have quietly stopped using talc and made the switch to cornstarch or arrowroot.