1 / 3FILE PHOTO: U.S. Rep. Krishnamoorthi questions Ambassador Sondland in WashingtonBy Lisa Girion and Chad Terhune
The agency said it lacks the authority to require manufacturers to test for asbestos in talc or report any results. And it seldom has ordered its own tests - until recently. Story continuesIn written responses to questions from Reuters, the FDA said its resources and authority to regulate the cosmetic industry are limited. The agency said it has no power to ensure the safety of cosmetics before they are put on store shelves, nor to force companies to pull them off when potential hazards are discovered.
The regulator has stood by its recent tests of Johnson’s Baby Powder, despite pushback from the company. The FDA now is under increasing pressure to ensure talc powders and cosmetics are free from asbestos. The agency’s testing of talc-based cosmetics this year followed jury verdicts totalling more than $5 billion against J&J in cancer lawsuits, as well as a Dec. 14 Reuters report showing that J&J knew its raw talc and powders sometimes tested positive for asbestos from the 1970s into the early 2000s and did not report those findings to the agency.
The FDA dropped plans to impose testing and purity standards for talc powders and cosmetics. The trade group published its own test, which was voluntary for companies to use. The written standard for that test acknowledges that it cannot detect most types of asbestos at low levels, nor one common type - chrysotile - at all.
Philippe Douillet immediately thought of the talc powder his sister used on her baby, he recalled in an interview with Reuters. He urged her to stop using it. Then he petitioned the FDA to require an asbestos warning on talc powders. J&J told Reuters in a statement that “at no point has Johnson & Johnson taken the position that it would consider talc containing 1% asbestos appropriate for sale to consumers.”
Other U.S. and European public health authorities have come to regard such splinters as presumptive toxins because of their similarity to asbestos. Bailey told Reuters in a statement that he issued this “interim” response because the petition lacked scientific support.