Document Lp1Q4ejLBzzQZxxJ8pyG50vjd

FILE NAME: Talc (TALC) DATE: 2009 DOC#: TALC188 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Barry Castleman Statement Cosmetic Use of Talc Cosmetic Use of Talc It has long been known that talc minerals arc commonly contaminated with asbestos. "Fibrous" talc miners in New York state were reported as having fibrosis of the lungs in 1943, an excessive rate oflung cancer in 1967, and cases of pleural mesothelioma more recently. Early reports raised concern about talc itself as well as talc with asbestos minerals in it. U.S. governmental researchers called attention to "Fibrous and Mineral Content of Cosmetic Talc Products" (LJ Crallcy ct al., Amer. Indust. Hyg. Assoc. J. pp. 350-354, 1968), which contained 8 to 30 percent of fibrous materials. The use of talc on surgical gloves was no longer recommended after that year {Merck Index 1968, p. 1011, cited in Blejer and Arlon). "Talc and Carcinoma of the Ovary and Cervix" (WJ Flenderson et al., J. Obstet. Gvnaec. Brit. Comm. 78: 266-272, 1971) was a concern raised by consumer exposure to talc. A paper presented in 1971 reported that the Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Eos Angeles had discontinued the use of talcum powders for any inpatient use (H Blejer and R. Arlon, "Talc: A Possible Occupational and Environmental Carcinogen," J Occup. Med. 15; 92-97, 1973). This report also referred to a 1971 study by researchers at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York, in which "significant amounts of asbestos were present in two brands of commercial, household-use fibrous talc dusting ('talcum') powder." In August of 1971, FDA official Alfred Weissler organized a "discussion section at FDA on asbestos in talc, which was attended by almost 50 representatives of industry, universities, and government."(letter to L Adamson and S Lang, Environmental Defense Fund, Mar. 2, 1973). I worked at the Baltimore County Department of Health at this time and received a letter from Congressman Paul Sarbanes observing, "Apparently the FDA should be taking a greater interest in [the suspected carcinogenicity of talcs and the labeling of products containing asbestos],"(Apr. 19, 1972) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration proposed on August 12, 1972 {Federal Register) to issue new regulations to require that talc used as a food additive and in food packaging be free of "asbestos-form particles." The next year, two environmental groups petitioned FDA to take action on asbestos foods and drugs arising from talc use and asbestos filtration of drugs. The asbestos-talc issue thus received widespread publicity ("FDA Asked to Ban Asbestos Filters," New York Times, June 29, 1973). I was the main author of a report published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Asbestos and You. The text was included with my testimony on community asbestos exposure, at U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearings held February 23, 1973. Alarmed over the cancer hazard of asbestos in talc and the risk that industry and the FDA wouldn't assure public safety, we wrote: Before 1895, when Johnson & Johnson began talc manufacture, babies were commonly dusted with corn starch; this safe substitute is still available, and at one-fourth the cost of talc. Wc recommend it. The National Enquirer ran a story "Talcum Powder Can Cause Cancer" (Nov. 5, 1974) in which the world authority on asbestos at Mt. Sinai, Dr. Irving Sclikoff, was quoted as saying, "We're really worried about the use of talc in the home" because of talc's asbestos content. Selikoffs team published a lengthy report in which the presence of asbestiform minerals and quartz was cited as establishing a "need for a regulatory standard for cosmetic talc." (AN Rohl et al., "Consumer Talcums and Powders: Mineral and Chemical Characterization," J. Tox. Envir. Health 2: 255-284, 1976). Selikoffs associate Arthur Danger said they found 2-20 percent asbestos in 9 of 19 products tested (M Burros, "Asbestos Fibers Found in Baby Powder," Washington Post, Mar. 8, 1976). Some products tested were asbestos-free, and one was composed of cornstarch instead of talc. The products were formulated prior to June, 1973. Given the widespread concern over asbestos in talc by health scientists, government, and the media, companies using talc in consumer "talcum" products after 1971 should have been aware of the potential mortal hazard of asbestos in such products to infants, cosmeticians, and other users and consumers of these products. Lawsuits over the workers getting mesothelioma from the use of asbestiform talc from R.T. Vanderbilt Company in New York state in (Durham Water Putty) consumer patching products led to loss of markets and the closure of the talc mine in 2008. As the company is privately owned, its entire list of commercial customers (including possible cosmetic and baby powder use) was never disclosed. As of 2007, at least 13 workers at the mine had developed mesothelioma. This was noted in a letter sent by Drs. Castleman, Millette, and Abraham to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (letter was never answered). A former defense lawyer for RT Vanderbilt told me in 2009 that he parted ways with the company, because they refused to admit that there was asbestos in their talc. He was urging that they should admit that and use other defenses to defeat claims.