House Panel Takes Up Talc Safety
Testifying at Tuesday's hearing was a plaintiffs expert in the talcum powder multidistrict litigation against Johnson & Johnson, and the son of an ovarian cancer victim whose husband won a $72 million verdict against J&J.
March 12, 2019 at 05:34 PM
6 minute read
A U.S. House subcommittee on Tuesday weighed whether to grant the Food and Drug Administration more authority to mandate safety recalls of cosmetic products, including asbestos-containing talcum powder.
The hearing before the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy in the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Reform, comes after the FDA last week warned consumers in a safety alert that four cosmetic products from retailers Claire's and Justice contained asbestos, a known carcinogen. (Claire's voluntarily recalled the products on Monday.)
It also comes as Johnson & Johnson has suffered massive jury verdicts over its baby powder.
“Juries across America are not waiting for Congress to act,” said Subcommittee Chairman Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Illinois. “Consumers use these products trusting they are safe and will not cause harm to themselves or their loved ones. Today's hearing was just our first step in protecting consumers from potentially hazardous or carcinogenic products.”
Pressure has intensified against Johnson & Johnson, which lost several jury verdicts in the past two years in trials involving victims of ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, including a $4.7 billion award last year. Last month, the Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued subpoenas in an investigation of asbestos in Johnson & Johnson's baby powder.
At Tuesday's hearing, Gerald Connolly, D-Virginia, called Johnson & Johnson's baby powder a “tragic case study.”
“When we mindlessly deregulate, or don't regulate, to protect the public, this is what can happen,” he said. “And I hope we will all remember that, and, frankly, I hope this hearing will lead to some legislative direction that empowers FDA especially in the cosmetic field.”
Last week, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, introduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act, which would give the FDA the authority to review ingredients in personal care products and require safety labeling and recalls of products “that threaten consumer safety.”
“Families trust that these products are safe, but unfortunately many ingredients have never been independently evaluated,” Feinstein said in a statement. “Our bipartisan legislation, which has the support of numerous companies and consumer advocacy groups, would modernize FDA's oversight authority and give consumers confidence that everyday personal care products won't harm their health.”
Johnson & Johnson has supported the bill but also noted that the FDA had found no asbestos in its baby powder.
In a statement on Tuesday, Johnson & Johnson criticized the hearing because “the testimony was biased with a majority of witnesses being connected to litigation against our company.”
“It was remarkably one-sided,” said Johnson & Johnson attorney Bart Williams, a partner at Proskauer Rose in Los Angeles, about the hearing. “There was only a desire to hear from those who claim that talc causes cancer, and they spoke as if it's established that it does, and it's absolutely not established. In fact, the science points [in] the other direction.”
One witness, Dr. Anne McTiernan, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, is an expert for plaintiffs attorneys in multidistrict litigation over talcum powder against Johnson & Johnson. She explained to the subcommittee how talc in baby powder, when used in the perineal area, can migrate to the fallopian tubes and ovaries to cause cancer.
“I believe talcum powder products do cause ovarian cancer,” she said. “The results are really consistent.”
The hearing also featured Marvin Salter, whose mother died of ovarian cancer after a lifetime of using Johnson & Johnson's baby powder. A jury in Missouri awarded her widow $72 million in 2016. The Missouri Court of Appeals later overturned the award.
“I sincerely believe J&J took my mother's life,” Salter said. He said that had his mother known about the safety risks of talcum powder, she would not have used the product. “Awareness is key. So many people are blind to the fact that this product is harmful, and I'm thankful we're bringing light to the subject.”
Ted Meadows and Leigh O'Dell, both principals at Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Alabama, which won the $72 million verdict, attended the hearing, along with Michelle Parfitt, of Ashcraft & Gerel in Alexandria, Virginia, who is co-lead counsel with O'Dell in the multidistrict litigation against Johnson & Johnson. Meadows said there were several other ovarian cancer victims and their families behind Salter at the hearing, including Deborah Giannecchini, who won a $70 million award in 2016.
“I thought it was powerful, primarily, because of the number of baby powder victims who were sitting in the audience that have an interest and concern about making sure the public is made aware of the hazards of baby powder,” he said. “I'm hoping that it is the foundation upon which the full committee will move forward and conduct a full investigation.”
Several committee members questioned how Johnson & Johnson continued to sell its baby powder despite knowing for decades that talcum powder contained asbestos. Others asked about Johnson & Johnson's marketing toward African-Americans and Latinos, which Ro Khanna, R-California, called “absolutely disgusting” and “appalling.”
Many asked what power to give the FDA, which noted its restrictions under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 in the safety alert last week.
The third witness, Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C., whose nonprofit group claimed to have found talc in 2,000 cosmetic products, suggested that requiring warnings would be appropriate.
“Today's testimony, and the support of so many cosmetic companies for legislation, is evidence that self-regulation no longer makes sense,” Faber said. “A warning would at least alert consumers to this potential risk and allow them to make their own choices.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrozen-Potato Producers Face Profiteering Allegations in Surge of Antitrust Class Actions
3 minute readState Appellate Court Upholds $149M Punitive Damages Award Against Hyatt
4 minute readThe Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute read'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250