Document DMgRBgz03X53bznX5QBog3yLd

FILE NAME: CTFA (CTFA) DATE: 1976 Mar 15 DOC#: CTFA011 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter - Examination for Asbestos in Talc BABY PRODUCTS COMPANY ' m viiJjivkm cii N EW BR U N SW .C K , N J OS013 March 15, 1976 Dr. Norman F. Estirin Vice President Science Cosmetic, Toiletries, and Fragrance Association 1133. 15th Street, fi.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 He: Examination for Asbestos In Talc Dear Dr. Estrin: The talc which is used by Johnson s Johnson is solely derived from its own mine in Vermont, where the ore i,s mined selectively and then-belieficiated by the process of flotation, Shipments of this highly purified talc are routinely examined by ouf own laboratory to verify the absence of asbestos minerals,. Historically, Johnson & Johnson has always been concerned about the mineralogical integrity of its tales and even its earliest spec!-, fieations have required the examination for acicufar .particulates.. When it was erroneously reported in 1971 that our powder contained, asbestos, we.-sponsored a scientific seminar of mineralcgical and. analytical experts for the FDA to. prove that our talc is not con taminated with asbestos. At that time numerous samples were analyzed b y .experienced Consultants such as McCrone Associates'. Colorado School of Mines, Professor F. D. Pobley (.of the University College, Cardiff).; Professor G. Brown (of Princptoxi 1 and Professor M, Buerger (of M.-I.T.). These examinations incJuded X-ray diffrac tion analysis, differential thermal analysis, and transmission electron microscopy.-- " During the period December 1972 to October 1973, 93 lots were indi vidually sampled and. examined by X-ray diffractometry for the presence of asbestos minerals. No amphiholes or serpentine minerals were detected in any sample. j ! i Dr. N. F. Estrih C.T.F-.. - 2- Mafch 15, 1976 Beginning in October 1973, differential -thermal analysis was added to our specified requirement. Both, differential thermal analysis and X-ray diffraCtometry were instituted for the routine examination of sequential, lots. A further 100 lots have since been examined," applying both methods to. ea.Ii sample. Again, no amphibole or ser pentine minerals have been.detected, I would like t advise that we are.continuing to employ differential./ thermal- analysis'and X-ray diffractofiietry in the examination of sequential lots for the detection of amphibole and serpentine min erals. . It should be pointed out that we also maintain a worldwide monitoring of- talcs used by our Johnson & Johnson affiliates, employing those same techniques. Finally, let,me add that periodically, we also submit sub-samples for Transmission Electron Microscope examination and these have always verified the absence of asbesti-forni minerals. It is olir understanding that jTu would wish to submit this information to the FDA. Please regard this letter as. non-confidntial. Sincerely yours.* GL/mm George Lee Director of Applied 'Research