Document ByKvXjQJRQabL9y6j0ZKwJX34

Avon P R O D U C T S , me S U F F E R N NEW YORK 10901 March 12, 1976 Dr. Norman Estrin CTFA 1133 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Dear Norm: This is to confirm our indication yesterday of our willingness to disclose to you and/or the Food and Drug Administration the results of our analyses of all lots of talc we have used in our products during the past three years. During 1973 all of our talc receipts were sampled, and aliquots were sent to McCrone Associates for X-ray diffraction analyses with the specific request for confirmation of the presence or absence of chrysotile. We did not specify other amphiboles at that time because our earlier data indicated that they were present only rarely in the talcs we examined. A total of 170 samples of talcs used in our products were examined by McCrone during that year. The X-ray diffraction patterns are on file at McCrone and can be reviewed by authorized people. The results were negative. Since February, 1974, we have analyzed about 250 samples of talc receipts in-house by DTA for chrysotile and IR for tremolite. As mentioned above, we felt that IR for tremolite was adequate for screening purposes, because of the rareness of other amphiboles. The data from these analyses can be made available, also, if needed. The results were negative. Please let us know if there is anything else we can do to help resolve the question of asbestos in cosmetic talc. Yours truly, JJT:mc cc: C. S. Rowland G. A. Sprott R. C. Reardon Central File