[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING CARCINOGENS IN TALC AND THE
BEST METHODS FOR ASBESTOS DETECTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AND CONSUMER POLICY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 10, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-76
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://www.oversight.house.gov or
http://www.docs.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-735 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Columbia Member
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California James Comer, Kentucky
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Michael Cloud, Texas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Peter Welch, Vermont Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Jackie Speier, California Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Chip Roy, Texas
Mark DeSaulnier, California Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Ro Khanna, California W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Jimmy Gomez, California Frank Keller, Pennsylvania
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Richard Trumka, Subcommittee Staff Director
William Cunningham, Chief Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor
Joshua Zucker, Assistant Clerk
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois, Chairman
Mark DeSaulnier, California, Michael Cloud, Texas, Ranking
Ro Khanna, California Minority Member
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan James Comer, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Chip Roy, Texas
Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on December 10, 2019................................ 1
Witnesses
Panel One
Mr. Alex Gorsky, Chief Executive Officer, Johnson & Johnson
Panel Two
Dr. William Longo, Scientist, Materials Analytical Services, LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Dr. Jacqueline Moline, Physician, Feinstein Institutes for
Medical Research at Northwell Health
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Mr. David Etheridge, Patient
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Dr. Professor Rod Metcalf, Geologist, University of Nevada-Las
Vegas
Oral Statement............................................... 11
* The prepared statements for the above witnesses are available
at: https://docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The documents listed below are available at: https://
docs.house.gov.
* ``Johnson & Johnson Was on Trial for the Opioid Crisis. 33
Lawmakers Took Its Money Anyway,'' article, Mother Jones;
submitted by Rep. Tlaib.
* ``Michigan AG Nessel Announces State's $3.2 Million Share of
Multistate Settlement with Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc.,''
press statement; submitted by Rep. Tlaib.
EXAMINING CARCINOGENS IN TALC AND THE BEST METHODS FOR ASBESTOS
DETECTION
----------
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:13 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Raja
Krishnamoorthi (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Krishamoorthi, DeSaulnier,
Pressley, Tlaib, Maloney (ex officio), Grothman, Comer, Miller,
and Jordan (ex officio).
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at anytime. I now recognize myself for
five minutes to give an opening statement.
On October 18, 2019, FDA announced that its independent
lab, AMA Analytics, detected asbestos in Johnson & Johnson's
talc-based baby powder. In response to FDA's announcement on
October 18, J&J issued a limited recall of one lot of its
talcum powder.
On November 15, 2019, I sent an invitation to Alex Gorsky,
the CEO of Johnson & Johnson, requesting that he appear before
our subcommittee to discuss the public health concerns
regarding J&J's baby powder. I am disappointed that J&J has
refused to comply with our request.
While Mr. Gorsky has not refrained from making multiple
public statements on this topic, including authoring written
statements and speaking with media outlets, he has now avoided
voluntarily testifying under oath before Congress. In fact, the
subcommittee's very first hearing earlier this year examined
possible carcinogens in talc-based products. Johnson & Johnson
objected to the hearing, complaining that it had not been
invited to participate. In a media release subsequent to our
hearing, Johnson & Johnson stated, and I quote, the
subcommittee did not hear the preponderance of evidence that
supports the safety of our product.
Before today's hearing, we gave Mr. Gorsky almost a full
month's notice of the subcommittee's interest in his testimony.
We wanted Mr. Gorsky to come forward with J&J's side of the
story, but he declined. We can only speculate as to why I am
currently speaking to an empty chair.
But here are the facts. There is evidence that, for
decades, tests have repeatedly found that Johnson & Johnson's
talc-based baby powder contained asbestos. More sensitive
testing methods than those used by Johnson & Johnson have
detested asbestos in talc. In fact, in an internal Johnson &
Johnson memo from 1975, employees discussing--discuss
suppressing the use of sensitive asbestos-detection methods
stating, and I quote, we want to avoid promotion of this
approach. But Mr. Gorsky is not here to speak to that.
There is evidence to suggest that when citizen petitions to
the FDA in the late 1980's and early 1990's demanded that J&J
label its powder with a cancer warning, the company pushed
forward during that same time period with an aggressive
marketing plan for communities of color as its sales to
Caucasians declined. But Mr. Gorsky unfortunately is not here
to speak to that either.
We also have evidence that in 2008, Johnson & Johnson
commissioned Research International, a market survey
consultant, to conduct a consumer survey to determine public
perceptions of its powder's name. The company learned then that
women preferred the cornstarch-based powder over the talc-based
powder and that women had a particular aversion to the words
``talc'' and ``talcum,'' with one respondent even stating,
quote, I don't like what that word brings to mind. Yet as you
can see behind me, the company made an intentional decision to
prominently feature cornstarch on the front of its cornstarch-
based bottle, while failing to do the same by labeling the word
``talc'' on the front of its talc-based baby powder.
Unfortunately, Mr. Gorsky is not here to speak to that.
Yet Mr. Gorsky's company has chosen to speak out and push
back against every instance over the last two months in which
asbestos has been detected in samples of Johnson & Johnson's
talc-based baby powder, including the FDA's own analysis.
At this very moment, I am sending a document request to
Johnson & Johnson seeking answers. We are asking the company to
explain its decisions to disregard consumer preferences for
cornstarch over talc, why the company continues to keep its
talc powder on the U.S. market when countries like Canada are
issuing findings to its citizens against the use of talc, and
why the company refuses to attach an adequate carcinogen
warning to the label of its talc-based baby powder, even as
generic alternatives do so.
This subcommittee will not rest until it has answers to
these questions. It's what the American people and public
health deserve.
I now recognize our colleague, Mr. Comer of Kentucky, for
five minutes for his opening statement.
Mr. Comer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
all the witnesses that are here today to testify.
The issue we're discussing today is extremely important.
Any possible risk from widely used consumer products should be
a concern for everyone. I'm confident that everyone in this
room used some type of consumer products this morning, the
safety of which we all take for granted. So I believe it's
important that the committee hear from experts about possible
talc contamination, the state of scientific understanding about
the issue, and whether there are regulatory changes that should
be considered with regard to the FDA and other agencies.
However, there are several things regarding this hearing today
that I'm uncomfortable with.
First, I'd like to address the witness listed by the
majority for today's hearing--the witnesses. Committee
Democrats announced that there will be a second panel today
featuring Johnson & Johnson CEO Alex Gorsky. However, since the
majority was well aware in advance of today's hearing that
Johnson & Johnson did not believe the CEO was the appropriate
witness for the subject matter specified by the majority and
that, therefore, he would not be appearing today, today's
proceedings, as they relate to his testimony, appears to be for
the benefit of the media and the audience.
Upon receipt of the invitation to this hearing on November
18 for the explicit purpose of examining, and I quote, methods
used to detect asbestos in talc, the company has operated in
good faith to provide an appropriate witness for this hearing.
Mr. Gorsky's background is not in asbestos-detection methods
and he does not have firsthand knowledge of such methods.
Given the hearing topic identified by the committee
majority, Johnson & Johnson offered a recognized expert on talc
geology testing methods. When that witness was rejected, the
company proposed that Kathleen Widmer, the chair of Johnson &
Johnson's North American consumer division which oversees
Johnson's baby powder, be allowed to appear. She's the highest-
level executive who is directly knowledgeable about the
supposed topic of today's hearing. Committee Democrats again
rejected Johnson & Johnson's proposal.
Then in a supposed change of heart just a few days ago, the
majority asked Ms. Widmer would--would be able to testify after
all. Johnson & Johnson then refused to rearrange her schedule--
or Johnson & Johnson then rushed to rearrange her schedule so
that she could appear as they had originally proposed. However,
later that same day, committee Democrats again changed course
and said that she was not acceptable after all, and they
insisted on Mr. Gorsky, who the company has repeatedly and
convincingly stated is not an appropriate witness for the topic
of the committee--of this committee Democrats' choosing today,
as if Democrats needed more theater on the day they announced
their partisan impeachment.
Mr. Chairman, Johnson & Johnson has, for the past years,
shown a willingness to cooperate with the committee's
investigation. It's provided briefings and it has produced
documents requested by the majority. In fact, the company has
produced nearly 10,000 pages of requested information and
offered to provide an additional 300 pages. This offer of
additional information was declined by the majority for
unspecified reasons.
I worry, Mr. Chairman, that the activities related to
witness invitations and document production leading up to
today's hearing may result in the perception that the
committee's investigation is not about learning new facts about
the potential harm of consumer products, but rather is about
trying to publicly shame or embarrass a company and seek out
``gotcha'' moments to aid in ongoing litigation, something this
committee has been regularly doing over the past year.
I worry too that the committee's actions raise questions
about whether it's using its investigative tools to interfere
with or give the appearance of interfering with ongoing
litigation. More than 15,000 liability lawsuits have been filed
against Johnson & Johnson over its talc-based products. This
hearing is yet another example of the majority's actions,
abiding by the trial bar, by holding hearings and requesting
documents that are critical and otherwise difficult to obtain
to plaintiffs' attorneys ability to litigate and file
additional lawsuits. We've already seen evidence of this
happening. One of the majority witnesses at its hearing on this
topic earlier this year is now citing her testimony before
Congress as part of her credentials during one of the ongoing
lawsuits.
I hope the subcommittee will commit to doing its best to
refrain from interfering or appearing to interfere with ongoing
litigation as we move forward.
As I said at the beginning of my statement, the issue we
are discussing here today is of the utmost importance. However,
I hope we can approach the topic moving forward with a spirit
of fairness and with an eye toward hearing from witnesses who
can provide the best available science and not just those
engaged in ongoing litigation.
With that said, I thank our witnesses for appearing before
our subcommittee today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you very much, Mr. Comer.
Congressman--Congresswoman Maloney is with us, the new
chairwoman of our committee, and I now recognize her to say a
few words and give her opening statement as well.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman, for holding today's critical hearing. And thank you
for your subcommittee's dedication to protecting public health.
In October 2019, FDA announced that it detected asbestos in
Johnson & Johnson's baby powder, leading the company to recall
more than 30,000 bottles. Since then, Johnson & Johnson has
publicly questioned the integrity of FDA's findings, casting
doubt on the accuracy of the testing that was conducted.
The American people need to have faith that the products,
that they are safe; and that is part of FDA's critical role. If
Johnson & Johnson claims there is some problem with FDA's
methods or procedures, they need to explain those allegations
in detail and provide the basis for their allegations.
Unfortunately, as the chairman explained, the CEO of
Johnson & Johnson, Alex Gorsky, has declined the subcommittee's
invitation to testify here today. He has spoken to the press,
issued public statements, and testified in litigation, but he
apparently does not want to defend his company's actions here
today. That is unfortunate and, frankly, unhelpful.
I hope and encourage the subcommittee to continue its
important work on behalf of the American people, and I pledge
my support as they do so. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for
this important hearing.
And I yield back.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you very much, Chairwoman
Maloney.
I would like to now recognize Ranking Member Jordan for an
opening statement, if you wish.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm fine. Our ranking
member, Mr. Comer, has said what needed to be said. Thank you.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Really? This is the first time I have
ever heard you say that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jordan.
Well, our first panel today should have had the opportunity
to--should have been our opportunity to hear from Alex Gorsky,
the CEO of Johnson & Johnson. Mr. Gorsky was aware of our
interest back in March and said that our committee needed to
hear their side of the story. We invited Mr. Gorsky to come
before us one month ago, and yet Mr. Gorsky is not here.
Mr. Gorsky can still make this right. He can respond
quickly and thoroughly to our document requests, and he can
come testify before us at a future hearing, because we will
continue to examine this issue, because it is not going away.
Too many people are demanding too many answers to important
questions, and the safety of Johnson & Johnson's talcum-based
cosmetic products is now in serious doubt. Too many people have
come forward with evidence of being harmed by these products.
Consequently, this issue is not going away, and this committee
will press forward with its inquiry.
With that, we will adjourn this panel and ask that the
expert witnesses come forward to commence the next panel. Thank
you.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you. We will now resume our
proceedings.
Today, we are joined by a panel of witnesses that will help
us examine the best methods to detect asbestos in talc.
Mr. David Etheridge, a Presbyterian pastor joining us from
Norfolk, Virginia, will speak about his personal struggles to
overcome mesothelioma, which he believes could have been
prevented if more sensitive test methods were standardized to
test for asbestos in talcum powder.
Dr. William Longo is a lab scientist at Material Analytical
Services, LLC, which has tested decades of samples of Johnson &
Johnson's talc-based baby powder. He will share his disturbing
findings with us, detecting asbestos in the majority of Johnson
& Johnson's samples that he tested.
Dr. Jacqueline Moline is the chairperson of the Department
of Occupational Medicine, Epidemiology, and Prevention at the
Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra
University. She is also the director of the Northwell Health
Queens World Trade Center Health Program and the director of
the New York state-funded Occupational and Environmental
Medicine of Long Island clinical center. She will share her
insights from a published case study of 33 patients with
mesothelioma, male and female. She will speak about their
exposures to talc-cased powders and what broader lessons we
must understand for public health.
Last, Dr. Rod Metcalf. He's a geologist from the University
of Nevada, Las Vegas. Dr. Metcalf will help us understand the
genesis of naturally occurring minerals often found in nature
together, talc and asbestos, and the dangers both pose.
If you would all please rise and raise your right hands, I
will begin by swearing you in.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
Thank you, and please be seated.
The microphones are sensitive, So please speak directly
into them. Without objection, your written statements will be
made part of the record.
And with that, Dr. Longo, you are now recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM LONGO, SCIENTIST, MATERIALS ANALYTICAL
SERVICES, LLC
Mr. Longo. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You have to press the button. Sorry.
Let me just explain the lighting system here. Press the
button to speak. Green means go. Yellow does not mean to stop;
it means speed up. And then red obviously means please
conclude. OK? So you have five minutes to speak. Thank you.
Mr. Longo. Thank you, Chairman and ranking members and--
Ranking Member and esteemed members of this subcommittee for
giving me the opportunity to discuss the best methods for
determining asbestos in cosmetic talc.
My name is William Longo. I have a Ph.D. in the area of
material science and engineering. And I am the president of
Materials Analytical Services, LLC, or simply MAS. I've been
involved in asbestos analysis and research for over 30 years
now. I have testified on behalf of both plaintiffs and
defendants in asbestos cases.
Independent labs throughout the country and over the course
of several decades have documented the presence of asbestos in
consumer talc products, including Johnson's baby powder. AMA
Analytical, Forensic Analytical, MVA Scientific Consultants,
our own lab MAS, and Johnson & Johnson's own consultants,
Colorado School of Mines, Dartmouth University, McCrone
Associates, Rutgers University, the RJ Lee Group and others
have all documented asbestos in Johnson's and other
manufacturers' talc products over the course of decades.
The talc industry has, in that time, accumulated hundreds,
if not thousands, of testing results that report no detectable
or no quantifiable asbestos. These reports regarded by
manufacturers as negative are very misleading, as they result
from analytical mythological techniques with poor detection
limits.
The question I would like to address in my testimony today
is why the testing methods adopted and used by the cosmetic
talc industry have regularly failed to detect asbestos and what
improved, through certainly not new, test methods can help
ensure that we are doing our best to find asbestos in talc.
The answer, in short, is straightforward and should not be
controversial to anyone. The methods used in the past and today
by the industry are not sensitive enough to detect trace levels
of asbestos. We should have analytical methods that achieve the
highest degrees of sensitivity and the lowest detection limits
plausible. Let me explain.
The first thing to understand is that asbestos fibers are
very small and virtually weightless. They're measured in
picograms or trillionths of a gram. Millions and millions of
asbestos fibers can be present in a single gram of talc, even
if the total asbestos by weight is less than 0.01 percent. So
good analytical sensitivity is extremely important when looking
at very small samples at very low weight percentages.
Analytical sensitivity is simply how many asbestos fibers
must be present in the talc sample for the analyst to see a
single fiber.
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.
So any analytical method for the detection of asbestos in
talc must have good sensitivity, but good sensitivity does you
no good if your sample preparation method doesn't allow you to
see the asbestos in something that is 99 percent talc.
It's been estimated that for every one asbestos fiber in
cosmetic talc, there are 600,000 talc particles. These big
plates of talc prevent the analyst from being able to see the
asbestos, another reason for poor analytical sensitivity.
This problem can be solved with a sample preparation method
called heavy liquid separation, HLS. This technique can
separate and remove substantial amount of the talc, leaving
behind any amphibole asbestos that might be present, making it
far easier and quicker analysis, along with substantially
better sensitivity.
As stated, the industry analytical sensitivity is between
10 million to 14 million asbestos fibers per gram. Our
laboratory, using the HLS sample preparation method for
cosmetic talc and TEM samples, we have been able to increase
that analytical sensitivity to approximately 4,500 asbestos
fibers per gram. Using HLS, we have detected amphibole asbestos
in approximately 65 percent of all the cosmetic samples we have
analyzed in the last three years.
The HLS method is not new to Johnson & Johnson or to the
talc industry. In the early 1970's, both the Colorado School of
Mines and Dartmouth University successfully developed an HLS
method and presented it to J&J. The company never adopted the
method, stating in the early 1970's memo that it may be too
sensitive and not in their best worldwide interest to employ.
Last, if the cosmetic powder manufacturers insist on
continuing to use their talc in their cosmetic products, it is
vital to the public safety that the most sensitive method must
be required. At this time, there is no dispute that this is the
HLS preparation method with analysis by TEM.
An important caveat: Even using the best method, one can
never state that cosmetic talc does not contain asbestos, only
that the results fall below the detection limit. The only true
solution to this problem is to ban the use of talcs in
cosmetics products.
Thank you, Representatives.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Dr. Longo.
Next to Dr. Moline.
STATEMENT OF DR. JACQUELINE MOLINE, PROFESSOR, FEINSTEIN
INSTITUTES FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH AT NORTHWELL HEALTH
Dr. Moline. Good afternoon, Chairman Krishnamoorthi,
Ranking Member Jordan, Mr. Comer, and members of the committee.
I'm honored to be here today. My name is Dr. Jacqueline Moline.
I'm a board certified physician at Northwell Health,
specializing in occupational and environmental medicine which
deals with the impact of exposures on the health of
individuals, including asbestos.
Asbestos has caused thousands of deaths in the United
States. Legislation pending, the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos
Now Act of 2019 is currently under consideration by Congress.
It is time for us to ban this deadly substance.
Asbestos fibers are microscopic. About 200,000 asbestos
fibers could fit on Abraham Lincoln's nose on the penny. Once
these fibers are breathed in, they can penetrate deeply in the
lungs and move throughout the body.
The most devastating disease from asbestos is mesothelioma,
which is a cancer of the lining of the lungs or the abdomen.
It's considered a signature disease, meaning its diagnosis
almost always indicates asbestos exposure. As a result,
treating doctors ask patients diagnosed with mesothelioma
whether they were exposed to asbestos.
For men, the evidence is often easy to identify. Many of my
patients sought care because they knew they'd worked with
asbestos. For women, sometimes it's easy to identify, because
they lived with someone who worked with asbestos and they
laundered their dusty clothes. Yet for many women and some men,
they had no traditional source of asbestos exposure. As a
result, their cancers were considered idiopathic or having no
cause. There's no sound scientific reason for a gender
discrepancy, apart from workplace exposures and could not be
explained merely by chance.
In my opinion, this conundrum has been solved. The presence
of asbestos in cosmetic talc more commonly used by women is
likely the cause of women's mesothelioma and men's
mesothelioma. This talc exposure was their only exposure to
asbestos. If doctors aren't aware that asbestos contaminated
talcum powder, they don't ask about its use, nor consider it as
a source.
To my knowledge, there have been no studies that look at
end users of cosmetic talcum powder, but to address this gap, I
recently published an article in the Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine. My colleagues and I reported on 33
individuals whose only source of asbestos exposure was the
cosmetic talc. For six of the 33, we tested their tissue and
found asbestos in talc. Years before, other scientists too had
looked at lung burdens of women with mesothelioma, found the
types of asbestos commonly found in talcum powder, and stated
that the asbestos might be used--might be related to their use
of contaminated talc.
I'd like to tell you about Ms. D, who is a 66-year old
woman who developed shortness of breath, chest wall pain,
weight loss, and fatigue. A chest x-ray showed fluid
surrounding her lung, and she had 1,600 milliliters of fluid,
more than about seven of these water bottles on this table in
front of me, removed from her lungs. She eventually had surgery
to take tissue samples for diagnosis and had mesothelioma. She
also had a pleural plaque, which is a hallmark finding of prior
asbestos exposure. Unfortunately, despite aggressive treatment,
she passed away two years after her diagnosis.
She had worked in various industries, including textile and
tobacco, and had no exposure to asbestos. However, she did have
exposure to cosmetic talc in two settings. She worked part time
as a hairdresser for 25 years, and she applied talcum powder to
her customers' necks after she cut their hair. She used
cosmetic talc on her body for 30 years, beginning with when her
mother used talcum powder on her and she later used it on
herself. She stated there would be a puff of smoke and it went
everywhere. Now, asbestos can linger after that initial
application and affect not only the health of the user, but
also family members.
In our study, the age of diagnosis was 27 to 88 years. The
average number of years of cosmetic talc use was 32.7.
Cosmetic talc use was not confined to one brand. There were
22 different brands used. Like Ms. D., patients often used more
than one type of cosmetic talcum powder.
Fortunately, mesothelioma is a very rare tumor. Around
3,000 new cases are diagnosed in the United States yearly.
Unfortunately, it's not curable. Five-year survival for pleural
mesothelioma is less than five percent. Peritoneal mesothelioma
is somewhat better.
In 2019, the Finnish Institute for Occupational Medicine
stated that asbestos fibers of a thickness of three micrometers
or less and a length of five micrometers or more cause a risk
of cancer and pulmonary diseases when inhaled, regardless of
whether they've been formed as a result of geological process
metamorphosis or an industrial process such as in mining.
What matters to me as a doctor is not the nomenclature. Any
particle of asbestos that's small enough to be inhaled is three
times longer than it's wide, can cause disease, including
mesothelioma. Using terminology to somehow differentiate
whether a particle is asbestiform or cleavage fragment
obfuscates the issue and is just semantics. If it can be
breathed into the lung, the body doesn't care how the fiber
grew. From a clinical perspective it's really quite simple.
Millions of individuals have been exposed to asbestos from
contaminated talcum powder. There are safer alternatives on the
market that don't contain talcum powder or asbestos. In my
specialty, we strive to identify, treat, and prevent future
illnesses related to exposures and hazards. If there's any
possibility of the presence of asbestos, why should we take the
chance?
Thank you. I'd be happy to take questions.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Dr. Moline.
Votes were called. We're just going to finish up the
opening statements and then recess briefly.
Mr. Etheridge, you have five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID ETHERIDGE, PATIENT
Mr. Etheridge. Good afternoon, Chairman Krishnamoorthi and
other members of the subcommittee. Apparently, quiet news days
are hard to find around here lately, so I especially appreciate
your presence today and your interest in this important topic.
I'm David Etheridge. I'm a Virginian and, for most of my
life, a Presbyterian pastor, husband, father of two, and more
recently, a grandfather.
At the age of 56, I was diagnosed with a rare and deadly
type of cancer called peritoneal mesothelioma. Because the only
known cause of mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos, my doctors
and others quizzed me about my potential exposure. They asked
about the places that I had worked and lived and school, where
my family members worked, which dorms were my home during my
stay at the College of William & Mary, trying to find some
point of exposure to asbestos. They asked hundreds and hundreds
of questions, but found no explanation.
As it turns out, my mother was a liberal user of powder,
and throughout her life, she used it on herself, and when I was
an infant, she used talc-based Johnson & Johnson baby powder on
me quite liberally. From the day she brought me home from the
hospital until the age of three, she and my older sister
covered me with baby powder every time that they changed my
diaper.
As an adult, trusting the product that had been used on me
for so long, I used Johnson & Johnson baby powder on myself for
a time, and my sister also used the powder on herself and now
she has ovarian cancer, which makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Since then, I've learned that whenever talc is mined from
the ground, it has impurities that are mined along with it,
including asbestos fibers. It was these fibers that got into my
system and migrated to my peritoneal cavity, which caused a
slow-growing tumor that debilitated me at the height of my
career. Baby powder containing talc was the source of my
asbestos exposure and the cause of the cancer that will kill
me.
Awaiting treatment, doctors withdrew six liters of fluid
from my peritoneal cavity. This they did twice so that I could
breathe until the surgery. And then I came here to the MedStar
Washington Hospital Center where Dr. Paul Sugarbaker performed
and 11-hour surgery on me, removing my spleen, my entire colon,
the tail of my pancreas, and 6-1/2 pounds of cancer. He washed
my insides with a strong solution of chemotherapy and then
sewed me back together for a 20-day stay in the hospital.
On my 57th birthday, they sent me home with a tube in my
arm for the liquid food and antibiotics that would keep me
alive for the next month, after which I endured 15 weeks of
chemotherapy and rehabilitation and total exhaustion. I lost 50
pounds.
After six months away from the church that I served, I
returned to work; but nine months later, more cancer was found,
cancer that cannot be remedied or radiated or cured. So I
resigned my position and I ended the service that I had felt
called to since the age of 16, and I made my preparations to
die.
I understand that you all have friends who have cancer. I
realize that 1,600 people die every single day from cancer, and
I'm thankful that mesothelioma has not yet taken my life, but
cancer was caused by a product that is used on the most
vulnerable members of our society, infants. This is the cancer
that will kill me. In fact, the people who apply these
products, like my mother and sister, are completely unaware of
the suffering that may occur or the death that may follow as a
result of simply drying a baby's bottom.
My case illustrates the sad truth that we cannot trust the
talc industry to regulate itself in this matter. Since 1906, we
have known that asbestos is deadly, and yet somehow it has
shown up in baby powder yet again. We owe it to our Nation's
children, parents, and every other consumer to ensure that our
baby powder is truly safe and asbestos-free. Despite decades of
promises to do so, the industry has not regulated itself.
Therefore, you must.
May God bless you in your work.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge.
Dr. Metcalf, you have five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROD METCALF, PROFESSOR, GEOLOGIST, UNIVERSITY OF
NEVADA, LAS VEGAS
Mr. Metcalf. Chairman Krishnamoorthi, Ranking Member
Jordan, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me today. My name is Dr. Rodney V. Metcalf. I hold bachelors,
masters, and Ph.D. degrees in geology. I have served on the
faculty of the Department of Geoscience at the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas, for nearly 30 years. My current research
focus is on understanding the geologic processes responsible
for the formation of amphibole asbestos.
I am here today to discuss the geological controls and
processes that form talc and asbestos and the potential for
talc and asbestos to coexist in talc ore and whether or not it
is reasonable to expect talc ores to be free of asbestos
minerals.
When processes in scale are considered, the probability
that talc and amphibole asbestos coexist in talc-rich rocks is
very high. Talc and amphibole asbestos minerals can and
certainly do coexist at scales that cannot be separated during
mining of talc. Though not impossible, it is improbable for
geologic processes to produce 100 percent pure talc in mineable
volumes.
Talc and asbestos are naturally occurring silicate
minerals. Asbestos refers to six regulated fibrous minerals and
include the serpentine mineral chrysotile and five fibrous
amphibole minerals. While chrysotile is always fibrous,
amphiboles occur in both fibrous and nonfibrous morphologies
that leads to this issue of cleavage fragments which I'd be
happy to discuss during the questioning.
Talc and asbestos are formed by water-rock interaction
during a type of metamorphism called hydrothermal alteration.
During this process, a preexisting rock called a protolith, or
a first rock, is subjected to changes in temperature, pressure,
and the infiltration of hot waters. These changes drive
reactions where minerals and a protolith break down to form new
stable minerals. The water has the capacity to alter the bulk
chemical composition of the protolith by the addition and the
removal of dissolved components as fluids flow through the rock
over time.
When water-rock interaction produces significant shifts in
protolith composition, the process is called metasomatism, and
it's thought to be responsible for the production of talc-rich
ores. Amphibole asbestos is formed by the same water-rock
interactions that form talc.
The two questions of particular interest here today are:
One, are talc-producing reactions linked to the formation of
amphibole asbestos? In other words, might we expect to find
amphibole asbestos in talc? The answer to this is yes.
Many talc-forming reactions involve the breakdown of
amphibole under geologic conditions that are favorable for the
generation of fibrous morphology, in other words, amphibole
asbestos. For these reactions, incomplete reaction progress
results in the retention of amphibole asbestos in talc-rich
rocks. Talc-anthophyllite transition particles, which are well-
known in the literature in talc ore, are interpreted as relics
of these incomplete reactions.
The second question: Are there metamorphic processes
capable of producing a rock of 100 percent pure talc, that is,
a talc rock free of asbestos? The answer to this question is
theoretically yes, but only under very specific conditions--
geologic conditions. Talc can be produced by reactions
involving the breakdown of carbonate minerals, a reaction
pathway that does not pass through amphibole asbestos, as long
as the process operates in a specific range of temperature.
Thus, metasomatism of carbonate protolith at a specific
temperature could produce asbestos-free talc. However, if the
process is started at a slightly higher temperature, amphibole
asbestos can form. Talc containing amphibole asbestos is known
from talc deposits formed by the alteration of these carbonate
protolithologies.
Asbestos in cosmetic talc is considered a health hazard to
consumers even at levels labeled as non-detect by the industry
J4-1 method. We should not be surprised when more sensitive
testing methods find asbestos present in talc ores and talc
products, given that the formation of asbestos and talc are
likely--are linked by common geologic processes.
Although we often refer to asbestos as a contaminant in
talc, as though it were an introduced foreign substance,
asbestos can occur as a relic component of the natural talc-
forming geologic processes, and its presence should be
anticipated.
Thank you for your time today. I'm available for questions.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you very much.
The committee will now stand in recess, subject to the call
of the chair. I ask members to please return promptly after the
vote series.
We'll be back shortly. Thank you.
[Recess.]
[2:45 p.m.]
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. The subcommittee will come order.
Thank you so much, and sorry for the pause in the
proceedings. What we are going to do is start with questions,
and I now recognize myself for five minutes of questions.
Dr. Moline, is there any safe level of asbestos in consumer
talc-based products?
Dr. Moline. No.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And why is that?
Dr. Moline. There's no safe level of asbestos, period. It's
a carcinogen. It's a type 1 carcinogen, and there should be no
exposure.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Dr. Longo, both the FDA and the EPA
agree that there is no safe or acceptable level of asbestos for
human exposure, correct?
Mr. Longo. That is correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In fact, just this past year, Johnson &
Johnson's CEO, Alex Gorsky, was asked in a deposition whether
asbestos is safe. He stated, quote: I would agree that asbestos
is considered unsafe. I'm not an expert geologist or a safety
expert in that particular area, but, generally speaking, we
would say, yes, asbestos is not safe.
On October 18, the FDA announced it had detected asbestos
in J&J's talcum powder. Dr. Moline, what is the significance of
this announcement?
Dr. Moline. That, to this day, they're finding asbestos
when they go off the shelf in talcum powder, and it's putting
thousands, if not millions, of people at risk in the future.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Dr. Longo?
Mr. Longo. That is correct. And those results verify our
results of finding amphibole asbestos in the Johnson &
Johnson's product from the Chinese mine, which is the mine
that's being used today.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Dr. Longo, it's important that we have
sensitive testing methods to detect any level of asbestos in
consumer products, right?
Mr. Longo. Yes, sir. That's correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you personally tested historical
samples of J&J's talcum powder, correct?
Mr. Longo. Yes, our laboratory has.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And from what decades did you test this
powder?
Mr. Longo. We have analyzed samples from the forties all
the way up to the 2000's, as well as the--as well as the
current Johnson & Johnson products.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And what did you find?
Mr. Longo. Overall, 65 percent of all the samples we've
tested were positive for regulated asbestos.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Did you use the same asbestos detection
methods as J&J?
Mr. Longo. No, sir, we did not.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And how did they differ?
Mr. Longo. We used what is called a heavy liquid separation
technique, which makes the analysis a lot more sensitive.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And do you believe that sensitivity is
essential to detecting asbestos in talc?
Mr. Longo. Absolutely.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, has Johnson & Johnson ever
acknowledged any asbestos detection tests that have concluded
that the company's samples contain asbestos?
Mr. Longo. Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So just so I understand, you've tested
historical samples from the forties through today----
Mr. Longo. Correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi [continuing]. using this HLS method of
detection, and in those tests, you've determined 65 percent of
those samples contain asbestos; but on the other hand, Johnson
& Johnson has never acknowledged that any of their samples
contain asbestos. How could that be?
Mr. Longo. Not currently they haven't. Certainly, their--
some of their testing have consultants in the past. They don't
acknowledge it. They say that what we are testing is really not
asbestos, and now it comes down to the argument of what's the
gee--excuse me--the geometry of the fibers versus what they
call cleavage fragments?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Okay. And why does that matter?
Mr. Longo. Well, on our side, it doesn't matter, because
we're following absolute regulated protocols to identify
asbestos recognized by EPA, OSHA, the ASTM, as well as the
International Standards Organization. It's a defining on what
the definition is. It's misleading at best.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Okay. Now, as you know, on October 18,
FDA announced its contract lab found asbestos in J&J's talcum
powder. Did FDA's contract lab, this is the AMA firm, did they
use the HLS method?
Mr. Longo. They did not.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. What kind of method did they use, do
you know?
Mr. Longo. I would call it the standard method where you
have to find a needle in a haystack, and every now and then,
you'll find that needle, but it's rare. And they've had a rare
event, in my opinion, that they found the needle in this
particular bottle.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So what would have happened had they
used the HLS method of detection, which is a much more
sensitive method?
Mr. Longo. If they had used that method as in its current
state, they would not have found the chrysotile asbestos, but
they could have found the amphibole asbestos, which is what
that method is really designed for.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And, again, tell us, what is the
significance of finding one type of asbestos versus the other?
Mr. Longo. No significance, because they're both regulated.
The significance is, is that current products are being sold
with trace amounts of asbestos in it.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Just so I understand, either one would
be carcinogenic?
Mr. Longo. That's not my area, but I think Dr. Moline would
tell you that either one is carcinogenic.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Dr. Moline, do you want to tell us if
either one is carcinogenic?
Dr. Moline. All of the forms of asbestos are carcinogenic.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you.
Let me now recognize Congresswoman Miller for five minutes
of questions.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Krishnamoorthi.
The Oversight Committee has long played an important part
of overseeing the role government plays in protecting the
public. Congress has mandated the Food and Drug Administration
be the responsible one for regulating certain products,
including consumer cosmetics that use talc. While the committee
has the jurisdiction to complete this oversight on the
possibility of asbestos in talc, today's hearing does nothing
to accomplish that goal.
Johnson & Johnson has provided over 10,000 pages of
material to the committee on their asbestos testing methods and
have offered to provide over 300,000 more. My colleagues on the
other side of the aisle declined to receive them. Johnson &
Johnson has also offered to have its own experts in asbestos
testing appear in front of this committee to provide real
documentation and evidence and, again, has been unfortunately
denied.
This hearing does not help consumers, and it is neither the
right forum nor the fair process needed to have this important
conversation. It is inappropriate for this committee to attempt
to influence ongoing litigation. Today's hearing is not the
role of this committee, and I look forward to the opportunity
to perform the oversight duties that the American people
elected us to do in order to keep us safe.
Dr. Longo.
Mr. Longo. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Miller. Is it true in the early 2000's you testified
under oath that talc containing asbestos was an urban legend?
Mr. Longo. Yes, ma'am. Oh, sorry. Yes, ma'am, I did.
Mrs. Miller. What has changed since then?
Mr. Longo. What has changed since then is we've been using
a much more sensitive method, and that was at the time that we
did not receive or had the opportunity to look at thousands and
thousands of Johnson & Johnson confidential documents showing
that their own testing of their own products in their own mines
had regulated asbestos in it, and we were not using the most
sensitive techniques. And since that time, in three years, we
have analyzed over 109 Johnson & Johnson bottles and found 65
percent of them positive for regulated asbestos using heavy
liquid density separation and many other cosmetic talc
companies.
Mrs. Miller. How long has that testing been available?
Mr. Longo. It was initially been available since, for
Johnson & Johnson, when their consultants, in 1973 and 1974,
developed a heavy liquid density separation method for
amphibole asbestos and presented it to Johnson & Johnson.
Mrs. Miller. But in 2001, when you were asked if you were
familiar with the asbestos content of cosmetics, you said: In
my field I have. It's sort of like an urban legend about the
talcs in cosmetics containing tremolite. I've never been able
to verify that.
Mr. Longo. Yes, ma'am, I did say that back in 2001. And,
again, that's before we received all the confidential documents
from Johnson & Johnson showing that they had a heavy liquid
density method separation process that was presented to them in
1973 and 1974, and Johnson----
Mrs. Miller. Have you ever visited a talc mine that
supplies Johnson & Johnson product?
Mr. Longo. No, ma'am, I haven't.
Mrs. Miller. Has your lab ever tested a Johnson & Johnson
product that has been confirmed positive for asbestos?
Mr. Longo. Yes. We have tested many Johnson & Johnson
products that we have confirmed positive for asbestos, as well
as other laboratories.
Mrs. Miller. Dr. Moline, in your written testimony, you
cite a study by Dr. Victor Roggli, but Dr. Roggli says that
cosmetic talc does not cause cancer. Is that correct?
Dr. Moline. I'm not sure what study you're referring to.
The study I was referring to was from early work he did where
he analyzed the lung tissue of women with mesothelioma and----
Mrs. Miller. This was 2019. Specifically, in August 2019,
Dr. Roggli stated that he and his fellow researchers identify
no evidence of any causative role of cosmetic talc in malignant
mesothelioma--oma.
Dr. Moline. I think that doctors may disagree on that, and
I think the weight of the evidence is to the contrary, but he's
entitled to his opinion.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Congresswoman Miller.
Now, Congresswoman Pressley, you have five minutes.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing today.
And, respectfully, I disagree with my colleague across the
aisle. I think this is the very exact vehicle and forum where
this sort of oversight is supposed to take place. This is the
committee where we pursue truth and justice for the American
people, and there has been a great injustice done to many, and
so I'm grateful for the hearing today.
I find it insulting to this committee and to the men and
women across this country whose trust in Johnson & Johnson has
destroyed their lives or the lives of their loved ones. Today,
we have heard brave testimony from people like Pastor
Etheridge.
And let me say what Mr. Gorsky wouldn't. I'm sorry. Sorry
for the pain you have endured, because you put your trust in a
company that placed profits over your very life and safety.
When Johnson & Johnson asks people to trust them, the FDA
should have said, show us. Show us that your products aren't
hazardous. And when they refused to do this, when research
showed that asbestos was showing up in their talc and baby
powder, rather than inform the public through warning labels,
Johnson & Johnson tried to discredit it. They looked for ways
to sell more of it, and they set their sights on Black and
Hispanic women.
Mr. Gorsky, I hope you are watching today, because we still
want answers. And that's exactly why Representative Schakowsky
of Illinois and I earlier submitted a letter that we plan--
submitted a letter so that we can continue to get to the bottom
of this and to demand answers and accountability for those who
have been harmed by Johnson & Johnson because of their
company's greed, and they deserve to be held accountable.
Pastor Etheridge, I know you had to step away from the
pulpit, but I could argue as a woman of faith that your
ministry continues as evidenced by your testimony here today.
Could you share with us, what were your initial symptoms?
Mr. Etheridge. My initial systems were unexplained weight
loss. I never lost weight by accident in my entire life. I had
fever, shortness of breath, and fatigue.
Ms. Pressley. And so--and was there--was there any other
context around this? Were you going on a trip or something or--
--
Mr. Etheridge. We were on vacation in Hawaii----
Ms. Pressley. Okay.
Mr. Etheridge [continuing]. and had some--I was taking
antibiotics and my symptoms, instead of getting better, were
getting worse, and so we went to an ER and I was diagnosed with
cancer at that time. It was later determined, upon my return
home, that it was mesothelioma.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
I have some more questions and, due to the interest of
time, if you'll please try to answer them as succinctly as
possible, preferably with a yes or no answer.
Did you consult additional doctors when you returned from
vacation?
Mr. Etheridge. Yes.
Ms. Pressley. Did your doctor discuss with you the causes
of mesothelioma?
Mr. Etheridge. Yes.
Ms. Pressley. Have you ever been exposed to asbestos in
your profession as a pastor?
Mr. Etheridge. No.
Ms. Pressley. How long have you been a pastor?
Mr. Etheridge. I was a pastor for 33 years.
Ms. Pressley. How often in adulthood would you use Johnson
& Johnson's talcum baby powder and for what purpose?
Mr. Etheridge. Maybe two or three times a week to powder my
genitals after I showered.
Ms. Pressley. Common.
Again, I'm so sorry for the pain you have endured. As a
lawmaker, I know the power of having those closest to the pain
driving our policy solutions, as well as the general
accountability, given the jurisdiction or reach of this
committee.
So just for the record, and you spoke to this in your
earlier testimony, but I think it bears repeating, Pastor
Etheridge, do you believe Johnson & Johnson's talc-based baby
powder caused your mesothelioma?
Mr. Etheridge. Yes, I'm convinced of that.
Ms. Pressley. And if you had the opportunity to make policy
changes to prevent other people from using products that cause
mesothelioma, what would you do?
Mr. Etheridge. At the very least, we should regulate the
use of talc or add warning labels to the products, but,
ideally, we need to get this stuff off the shelves.
Ms. Pressley. All right. Well, we'll certainly do
everything we can to ensure justice for you and your family.
God bless you.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And I yield.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I thank you Congresswoman. I'm going to
use the remainder of your time for a couple of questions here.
Dr. Longo, when was the first known reporting of asbestos
in J&J's talcum powder made public?
Mr. Longo. The first reporting, I guess--I keep forgetting
it.
The first reporting I think was only recently public.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And was that positive asbestos finding
conducted by an independent lab?
Mr. Longo. Yes, sir, it was.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And let me ask you this. In response to
a couple of questions that you were asked, I think that they
mentioned that earlier in 2001, you had indicated that you
weren't aware of asbestos in talc powder. But then after
reviewing documentary evidence, as well as conducting
additional tests, you then learned of the presence of asbestos
in talc powder.
Do you want to say anything more about that?
Mr. Longo. Yes. It was early on and, as scientists, we keep
our minds open. And then the--there was a published paper in
2014/2015, and then I became interested in it. And then finally
in 2016, decided to go ahead, but had to look for a more
sensitive method, and that's where the L--the liquid heavy
density separation method came in.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Dr. Longo.
Now I will recognize Mr. Grothman for five minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. This is a very interesting
committee on oversight. You never know what you're going get. A
different topic every day.
I'm a little bit disappointed here, and I'll say this
because, of course, people back home are watching, this being
filmed and we have four people testifying today.
As I understand it--and, of course, you know, we sometimes
meet with people in our offices prior to these hearings--
Johnson & Johnson had an expert they wanted to have testify. I
understand majority party wanted Mr. Gorsky, I think was his
name, the CEO, to testify, but not surprising, Johnson &
Johnson wanted an expert. And I see we have three doctors
testifying today. They wanted their own expert to be able to
testify. It was the two sides to every story. I think their
expert was a woman by the name of Kathy Widmer. And for
whatever motivation, Kathy is not here today. She was not
allowed to testify.
And I think it's disappointing, because I came here open-
minded. I wanted to hear both sides of the story. I assume
there's both sides to the story. As I understand it, there are
four or five times in which an appellate court has ruled on
this situation, and all four or five times, they've ruled in
favor of Johnson & Johnson.
Now, I'm as jaded about courts as anybody, but I assume
that when people have--when judges have time to review briefs,
maybe read hundreds of pages on this topic, and they decide
against the plaintiffs, there's something there. There's a
story that I should be able to hear. And I resent a little bit
of the fact that I'm not able to hear that story.
I don't think it's out of line for Johnson & Johnson to say
we don't want our CEO to testify. We have three doctors
testifying, and we want our own doctor, but we didn't hear
their own doctor.
And I'll just say one more time that that's disappointing.
Mr. Grothman. And in case anybody is paying attention to
this hearing--paying attention to this hearing at home, for our
home viewing audience, that they are aware that we're getting
one side of the story today. I'll plunge ahead with that one
side and see what I can hear from these folks.
As I understand it, four or times on appeal, judges decided
that plaintiffs did not have a strong enough case or ruled
against plaintiffs. I have other questions too, but I'll ask--
because we don't have the people on Johnson & Johnson's side
here, could I ask, say, Dr. Longo, why on appeal does Johnson &
Johnson seem to keep winning these cases?
Mr. Longo. And, again, my understanding is the appeal had
to do with jurisdiction issues, not anything to do with the
science, and that's just my understanding.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. And they sometimes won before juries as
well. Again, juries don't always get it right, but they're
juries who listen to all of the evidence, not just, you know,
five-minute questions from Congressmen, and they are sometimes
deciding that Johnson & Johnson has not done anything wrong in
these cases.
Dr. Longo--and I hope this isn't true, but, you know, we're
provided some stuff in advance here. You own a company, MAS, or
have a 75 percent in MAS. Is that true?
Mr. Longo. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. And MAS makes money testifying or
providing evidence before trials of this nature?
Mr. Longo. Yes, sir. We do provide experts the bill for
their time.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. Could I find out how much on these
cases, how much you've billed out total to--to claim that
Johnson & Johnson is negligent in these cases?
Mr. Longo. I believe MAS has billed for all its research
and development and--and sample analysis and----
Mr. Grothman. A hundred thousand? A million? Ten million?
Thirty million? I mean, there are all sorts of numbers around
out there. How much have you guys about billed out on this--on
this matter?
Mr. Longo. I would estimate in the two years--2017, 2018
and 2019, I would estimate somewhere a million, a million-
point-2.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. That's----
Mr. Longo. I think. That's an estimate.
Mr. Grothman [continuing]. total of--now, somebody gave me
something. Maybe they're lying. They're saying total MAS may
have billed out as much as 30 million, but you're saying it's
only 1 or 2 million?
Mr. Longo. Well, that's two different questions. MAS
started in 1988, and for 31 years, we've probably--we have--we
have averaged a million dollars in litigation. But you have to
understand, we're a 20,000-square-foot laboratory, we have 43--
--
Mr. Grothman. I understand you have got expenses. You--when
people tell me that you might have billed out 30 million to
take a side on this matter, are they lying to me, or is it
about 30 million?
Mr. Longo. I won't call somebody a liar, but that's just
not true. If I had billed personally $30 million----
Mr. Grothman. Not personally. The company.
Mr. Longo. If the company had billed--the company has not
billed $30 million involved in Johnson & Johnson----
Mr. Grothman. Twenty million?
Mr. Longo. No. I would say in the three years for the
Johnson & Johnson litigation----
Mr. Grothman. Total.
Mr. Longo [continuing]. maybe 1.5 million.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you much.
I hope some day we do have a chance to hear from Ms.
Widmer.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Well, thank you.
And the minority always has the option to provide a
witness. They declined to do so today. Nobody.
Now we're going to call on Congresswoman Tlaib for five
minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman. I do sincerely
appreciate you using this committee to kind of elevate the
voices of people like the pastor here and others that have been
impacted.
I think it's really hard for me to sometimes sit here and
hear folks, you know, kind of be the--the defendant lawyers for
the corporations. I mean, how much money, millions and billions
of dollars, did Johnson & Johnson make in poisoning people? I
mean, literally why aren't we asking that question?
Because I--you can't get away from the facts. FDA found
asbestos in baby powder. Now remember, it's baby powder; it's
not even--it's baby powder. Not only that, they later on--
furthermore, reports state that the asbestos was detected in
one of the tests Johnson & Johnson itself conducted using
sample from the same bottle as the FDA, okay? Fact. Okay? FDA
is coming to us saying this, okay? Are we going to say, oh, is
FDA getting paid? No. These are--these are folks that are
coming in trying to protect the public. That is our job. That
is our job, to protect the public.
Reports show that Johnson & Johnson contracted with RJ Lee
Labs. RJ Lee reportedly deviated from its standard testing
procedures in order to deliver rushed results at the request of
the company. Check this out. An RJ Lee scientist stated that
Johnson & Johnson wanted, quote, very rapid turnaround for
obvious reasons. Then the lab found asbestos in its sample, but
later retracted its results and claimed that initial false
detection was due to environmental contaminants in one of its
testing rooms.
Johnson & Johnson discredited its own company that they
hired and contracted out. They discredited RJ Lee's initial
finding, blaming the asbestos detection on all kinds of stuff
that is, you know, what we say in Detroit, BS.
Dr. Longo, have you evaluated this particular RJ Lee
testing report?
Mr. Longo. Yes, I have.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. I mean, do you see what's the problem here?
I mean, they found asbestos, correct?
Mr. Longo. They detected asbestos in the actual talc
samples, and then their controls are blanks. When they were
analyzed, they did not detect asbestos.
Ms. Tlaib. And samples of a bottle of Johnson & Johnson
baby powder have tested positive in two separate labs, correct?
Mr. Longo. I know--yes, in the AMA lab as well as the RJ
Lee lab.
Ms. Tlaib. And Johnson & Johnson proceeds to accuse both
labs of being contaminated with asbestos.
Mr. Longo. I know.
Ms. Tlaib. Dr. Longo, I mean, wow. Like, I am just--you
know, I've only been here a year, but I'm just so taken aback
that my colleagues don't even see it. I can't even make this
stuff up. This is factual. I can't even make it up.
These FDA folks, they're not Republicans or Democrats.
They're government officials that are doing their jobs, right,
Pastor? I mean, that's what they're supposed to be doing.
They're public servants. They're doing exactly what they were
hired to do, which is protect the public. And I am just taken
aback that my colleagues who represent--each of us represent
close to 700,000 people back home, that doesn't expect us to be
defendant lawyers for Johnson & Johnson who basically poison
people. They expect us to defend them, to protect them. And we
have to be--realize, like how much money did they make off of
the human suffering of people?
My God, Pastor, 33 years, pastoring people. You know, I
hope this is--like, this for you is--you are continuing your
work for the people by--by talking about this in a very
profound way through your own personal experience.
But I am just--you know, Chairman, I cannot stress enough
just how important it is that this committee is used for good.
And that's exactly what we're doing. We're sharing exactly
what is happening to people because of this. And they want to
come up with these kinds of little conspiracy theories and all
this other stuff. The fact of the matter is FDA found asbestos
in the testing. Two companies that Johnson & Johnson hired
found asbestos. How much more testing do our people need? How
much more? Enough is enough.
And so I just urge my colleagues to support the chairman as
he proceeds to find the truth. And I'll tell you, I've been
here--they have every opportunity to bring their own witness
forward. I actually went and asked staff who is their witness.
They said they don't have one. They had every opportunity, the
Republicans, to actually put somebody up here to talk about
this.
So I obviously am very passionate about this. I can just
tell you, you know, from my district of folks--I have the third
poorest congressional district in the country. Very strong,
resilient people. They are the people that got targeted by
Johnson & Johnson. They're the ones that they thought was
disposable for profits. So I'm not going to keep my mouth shut
or try to say, well, this ain't fair. No, if the FDA found
asbestos, shouldn't that be enough?
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Congresswoman Tlaib.
We're just going to go to a second round of questions and
then finish up here.
It is true the minority did not call a single witness,
whether it was from Johnson & Johnson or anybody. So they had
the opportunity and they declined. And, of course, as we know,
the CEO has opined on this issue multiple times. He'll go to
the media, he'll go in other forums and talk about this, but he
doesn't want to talk about it in Congress. And that's a
problem.
Now, let me just ask a couple more questions here.
Mr. Etheridge, at the time that you had used Johnson &
Johnson's baby powder, did you have any inkling whatsoever
about this presence of asbestos in its powder?
Mr. Etheridge. There was no reason for me to suspect this
hazard. They're known as the baby company.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In fact, they advertise the powder in a
way that makes it seem like it's as pure as any--any material
out there, and obviously that's why moms and families apply it
to babies, right?
Mr. Etheridge. I used it on my own children.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Sure. And I think that--I hear some of
my colleagues saying the same thing. And I think generations of
families have used it, around the world.
Dr. Longo, you know, I wanted to ask you a little more
about your testimony with regard to your own practice. I think
the other side wants to make a big deal out of your prior
testimony. Would you like to comment on I think their
suggestion that somehow your testimony is really motivated by
money as opposed to what you've discovered in your scientific
testing?
Mr. Longo. No, our practice is not motivated by money. We
do participate in litigation, but our company testifies for
both plaintiffs and defendants over the last 30 years.
We have to charge for our time. We have to pay for the
electron microscopes. We have to pay for the optical
microscopes. We have to pay the rent. I'm not sure a lot of
these folks understand what it takes to run a small business.
We go with every type of analysis we do with the utmost
integrity. I had no idea back in the day that cosmetic talcs
would have this kind of asbestos levels in them. It wasn't
until I got interested in it and realized that it was the
detection limits that was the problem, that the trace amounts
of asbestos in the detection limits was causing every--all the
labs that were analyzing it at the time to think there was
nothing there.
Using the best detection method, we're now seeing that
these accessory minerals--tremolite, actinolite, and
anthophyllite--are there. And you can't predict when you'll
find it or not. It's almost ubiquitous. The only way to get rid
of the problem and to assure, in my opinion, that there is no
more exposures to this, is to eliminate talc from these
cosmetic products.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Okay. Dr. Moline, it's pretty clear
that mesothelioma can only be caused by one material, and that
is asbestos, correct?
Dr. Moline. That's basically true. There's some evidence
that folks who have undergone therapeutic radiation may be at
increased risk. There's no studies that look at the combination
of those two. There are some folks that have had both and is at
an increased risk.
In terms of outside products, in the United States,
asbestos is the only product that we're aware of that causes
mesothelioma, although there is some question of some other
minerals like taconite that's found in Minnesota.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I see.
Dr. Moline. But it's about 99 percent or more.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Okay. And, Dr. Metcalf, I think that
you talked about the mineral mining, and I think maybe some of
my colleagues will talk about this a little bit further. But
talc and asbestos are naturally occurring together, correct?
Mr. Metcalf. That's correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It's like you can't mine talc without
mining asbestos in the same process?
Mr. Metcalf. Well, I did outline a very narrow set of
conditions where talc might be produced without--at least
amphibole is what I actually--without asbestos. But for most of
the geologic settings where talc forms, we very much expect to
find asbestos minerals with it, because it is--it is the
amphibole minerals that are breaking down to form talc.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I see. And in this particular----
Mr. Metcalf. And let me add that these processes are taking
place at--almost at the atomic scale that these minerals are
growing, but we are mining this stuff with drills and front-end
loaders and blasting and dump trucks. And so to be able to
assure, the way Dr. Longo does, that the material we're mining
is free of this, we need to test lots of it, because there's
lots of heterogeneities too. We may test one sample and it may
be pure talc; we may test another sample and it could be--have
asbestos in it. And so it's the heterogeneities that make this
a real problem.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Very good.
Now I'll recognize Congresswoman Pressley for five minutes.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to say I associate myself with the impassioned
Detroit tell-it-like-it-is comments of Representative Tlaib a
moment ago, and completely dissociate myself with the comments
offered by my colleague across the aisle. I find that I have
that dual experience often on this committee of comparable
pride of our honoring the words of our late chairman in being
in efficient and effective pursuit of the truth and
simultaneous shame with all of the efforts to obstruct the work
of this committee to get to the truth.
But since there was a desire expressed earlier to center
the science, I'd like to ask some line of questioning in line
with that.
It is reported that Johnson & Johnson's talc tested
positive for asbestos as far back as 1957 and 1958. Yet on more
than one occasion, labs have tested samples from the same
bottle of Johnson & Johnson's talc-based powder and come to
different conclusions.
As Representative Tlaib mentioned in her impassioned
testimony or statement, Johnson & Johnson commissioned its own
studies with samples from the same bottle and predictably
announced their samples tested negative for asbestos. Notably,
Johnson & Johnson's own commissioned lab also detected asbestos
in one of the company's samples, yet later attributed the false
positive to environmental contaminants of an air-conditioning
unit.
Dr. Longo, how are divergent detection results possible
when two samples from the same bottle are tested for asbestos?
Mr. Longo. If you have trace levels and you are using an
unsensitive method, you can have where one sample will be
detected and then another aliquot you may not see that. So it's
very hard to say, especially if you have a laboratory that did
detect it, then didn't detect it. So you can't really compare
apples to apples here.
Ms. Pressley. Mr. Metcalf, geologically, how closely
related are talc and asbestos?
Mr. Metcalf. Very closely related. As I said, many of the
reactions that form talc, the metamorphic reactions that form
talc, are breaking down amphibole--an amphibole under the kinds
of conditions that make them fibrous.
And I'll say, I actually came to this, not--to look at talc
not because I was interested in talc, but because I was
interested in understanding why amphiboles, which are sometimes
fibrous and sometimes are not fibrous, why are they fibrous,
what controls it. And as I started to do literature review--and
there's a lot of papers published in the seventies and eighties
and then in the early nineties that looked at this with high-
resolution transmission electron microscopes. And I kept
running into textures and understanding that we went from
nonfibrous to fibrous amphibole to talc, and it was a reaction
sequence that ended in talc.
And that's what really got me interested. And I really
wasn't paying attention to the talc stories and any of the
stuff until I kept running into this in the literature. And so,
yes, asbestos and talc are linked by geologic processes.
Ms. Pressley. And so talc and asbestos evolve from the same
protolith?
Mr. Metcalf. Yes, that's correct.
Ms. Pressley. Okay. And so what environmental processes
caused the protolith to evolve into asbestos and talc?
Mr. Metcalf. So the process that's involved in this most of
the time, as I talked about, is something called hydrothermal
alteration. It's a type of metamorphism when a preexisting
rock, the protolith, is subjected to differing conditions of
pressure and temperature, and particularly fluid flow. So over
the course of the metamorphism, fluids are passing through the
rock, and it's the reaction of those fluids with the protolith
that drives these processes. All these minerals are hydrous
minerals.
Ms. Pressley. So during the rock evolution, asbestos can
eventually become talc?
Mr. Metcalf. Right. Right. And I'll add one thing is that--
again, I said this in my opening statement. We often talk about
asbestos as being a contaminant in the talc, as though it
were--fell out of an air conditioner, for instance, some
foreign body that was introduced. But the reality is, is the
way that talc forms, it forms--the road to talc leads through
amphiboles and amphibole asbestos. And so it's a relic of the
geologic process, not a contaminant from some foreign body.
Ms. Pressley. Okay. So, again, just to be clear--this will
be my final question. So is it the case and accurate to say
that talc cannot reliably be asbestos-free?
Mr. Metcalf. Well, I wouldn't go quite that far. There are
some--as I said, there are some reactions that have the
potential--and it's been reported that there are asbestos-free
versions. There's a mine in Montana. However, I don't think
anybody has ever tested it to the sensitivity that Bill Longo
has been discussing.
So I think, of the ones that people say are asbestos-free,
I think that's not been demonstrated. I think the
responsibility is to--is to do the best testing possible and
make sure that these things are--are asbestos-free. But I
would--I would be surprised if we could find any that's
asbestos-free.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Congresswoman.
And now Congresswoman Tlaib, five minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman.
I do want to submit for the record, if there's no
objection, a Mother Jones article where it shows that Johnson &
Johnson has poured money into directly influencing Federal
lawmakers. So far this year, the company has spent $100,000.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit the article.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Tlaib. Also, I'd like to submit a press statement from
the Michigan attorney general, Dana Nessel, who announced a $3
million share of a multistate settlement with Johnson & Johnson
and its subsidiary.
According to--is that Okay?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Chairman.
But according to this statement, it looks like Johnson &
Johnson and its subsidiary is to pay over $3 million for their
deceptive marketing of transvaginal surgical mesh devices. The
total multistate settlement is nearly $116.9 million.
I just want to show a pattern of this company. And I know
it has--but this is very critically important to show. Now they
actually have subsidiaries so that we have to now worry about
whether or not in those instances that they're exposing people
to devices and to chemicals that are very toxic and harmful.
I know that we've been talking a lot about testing, which I
think is really critically important, because it gives
credibility to the pastor's claim as well as others who have
come forward and said, you know, I'm sick because of being
exposed to this product.
In 2009 and 2010, FDA conducted a survey of talc products
for asbestos testing. And records show that FDA selected AMA
Labs to conduct its testing for all three surveys.
And then just last month, AMA detected asbestos in a sample
of Johnson & Johnson's talc powder. In its public--it's called
request for quote--solicitation posting for asbestos testing,
the FDA stated, and I quote, it is now apparent that detection
of asbestos in cosmetics demands using the most sensitive
asbestos testing methods available.
Dr. Longo, your lab conducts these kinds of testing. Are
you familiar with this at all?
Mr. Longo. I'm familiar with that--you know, I have a big
note that says push talk button.
Ms. Tlaib. Oh, that was me the first month, sir, so don't
worry about it.
Mr. Longo. I'm very familiar with the testing, I'm very
familiar with that request for proposal, and I'm very familiar
with the detection limits that AMA has for the analysis they
did in 2010.
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.
Ms. Tlaib. Is there scientific consensus as to which
asbestos detection method is more sensitive?
Mr. Longo. I believe the consensus would be that the heavy
liquid density separation for electron microscopy. It is a
standard method now for the International Standards
Organization that has a specific section especially for talc
using this method that was published in 2014.
Ms. Tlaib. Why is it essential to use the most sensitive
methods? I mean, it's clear to me, so we can find it, right?
Mr. Longo. So you can find it. And also I believe because
it's hard to get grasp around the fact that if you have
something that's at trace levels, you can still have hundreds
of millions of asbestos fibers in there because they're so
small and weigh so little.
Ms. Tlaib. And do you believe the heavy liquid density
separation method, which we just talked about, is the most
sensitive method available? And you're saying internationally
that's what's been seen as the process.
Mr. Longo. Yes, I do.
Ms. Tlaib. So just to get a little bit more deeper--and I
can't believe--this is stuff that my son would love, my 14-
year-old. This is out of my area. I just know if somebody is
harmful, I just want to be able to speak up for them.
But how does the sensitivity of high liquid density
separation method detect asbestos in samples that would
otherwise test negative for asbestos?
Mr. Longo. Well, if you have a detection limit of 10
million to 14 million, that would eliminate almost 95 percent
of the samples that we found that were positive, if we had to
have that detection limit.
The heavy liquid density separation method, we've been able
to increase that sensitivity between 2,000 and 3,000 times.
That's why we're now seeing what I believe is the reason why
people have not been seeing it in the past.
Ms. Tlaib. Okay. Thank you so much, Chairman. I yield the
rest of my time.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you so much, Congresswoman.
And thank you to all the witnesses for coming here today.
Thank you to the audience members for being present for this
very important hearing.
I'd like to thank our witnesses for their testimony.
Without objection, all members will have five legislative
days within which to submit additional written questions for
the witnesses to the chair which will be forwarded to the
witnesses for responses. I ask our witnesses to please respond
as promptly as you are able.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]