Sunday nights at 8 00 eastern on cspans q and a. Next a hearing on carcinogens and methods for detecting as best us and talcum powder. The subcommittee heard from scientists, a doctor and patient after the fda said it found trace amounts of as best us in baby powder. Johnson johnson recall but its tests found no carcinogens. The hearing is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] the subcommittee will come to order. Without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. I welcome myself for five minutes to have an Opening Statement. On october 18, 2019, fda announced its independent lab detected as best us in Johnson Johnsons talk based baby powder. In response to fdas announcement on october 18th, j and j issued limited recall of one lot of its talcum compound. On november 15, 2019, i sent an invitation to alex gorski requesting that he appear before the subcommittee to discuss the Public Health concerns regarding j and js baby powder. Im disappointed that j and j refused to comply with our requests. Mister gorski has not refrained for making multiple Public Statement on this topic including offering written statements and speaking with Media Outlets he has avoided voluntarily testifying under oath before congress. In fact the subcommittees first hearing earlier this year examined possible carcinogens in town based project. Johnson johnson objected to the hearing complaining it is not been invited to participate. In a Media Release subsequent to our hearing Johnson Johnson stated, quote, the subcommittee did not hit the preponderance of evidence that purports the safety of our product. Before today is hearing we gave Mister Gorskis subcommittee in his testimony. We wanted Mister Gorski to come forward with dan js side of the story but he declined. We can only speculate as to why im currently speaking to an empty chair but here are the facts. There is evidence that for decades tests repeatedly found Johnson Johnsons talk based baby powder contained a is best us. More sensitive testing methods than those used by Johnson Johnson have detected as best us and talcum. And internal Johnson Johnson memo from 1975, employees discuss each of the sensitive methods stating we want to avoid promotion of this approach but Mister Gorski is not here to speak to that. There is evidence to suggest when in the late 1980s and early 1990s demanded that j and j label its powder river cancer warning the company pushed forward during the same time period an aggressive marketing plan for communities of color and sales to caucasians declined. Mister gorski is not here to speak to that eithererererer in 2008 Johnson JohnsonsResearch InternationalMarket Survey consultant to conduct a Consumer Survey to determine Public Perception of its powders name. The Company Learned then that women preferred the cornstarchbased powder over the talcum based powder and women had particular of versions the words talc and talcum with one respondent stating i dont like what that word brings to mind. As you can see behind me the company made an intentional decision to prominently feature cornstarch on the front of its cornstarchbased bottle while failing to do the same by labeling the words talc on the front of its talcum based baby powder. Unfortunately Mister Gorski is not here to speak to that. Mister gorskis, he has chosen to speak out and push back against every instance over the past two month in which is best us has been detected in samples of Johnson Johnson at town based baby powder including the fdas own analysis. At this moment im sending a document requested 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 stay on the us 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 its talcum based baby powder even as generic alternatives do so. The sub, he will not rest until it has answers to these questions. It is what the American People and Public Health deserve. I now recognize our colleague, mister comer, for his Opening Statement. I want to thank all the witnesses who are here to testify. The issue we are discussing today is extremely important. Any possible risk from widely used Consumer Products should be a concern for every one. Im confident everyone in this room used some type of Consumer Product this morning the safety of which we all take for granted. It is important the committee hear from experts about possible talc contamination. 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 i am uncomfortable with. I would like to address the witness listed by the majority for todays hearing. Johnson johnsons ceo, alex gorski, however, since the majority was well aware in advance of todays hearing the Johnson Johnson did not believe the ceo was the appropriateness first the subject many specified by the majority and therefore he would not be appearing today, todays proceedings appears to be for the benefit of the media and the audience. Upon receipt of the infinite hearing, the message used to detect as best us in talc the companies operated in good faith, provide appropriate witness for the hearing. Mister gorskis background is not in as best us detection methods and he does not have firsthand knowledge of such methods. Given the hearing topic identified by the Committee MajorityJohnson Johnson geology testing method. When the witness was rejected, the Company Proposed kathleen, the chair of Johnson Johnsons north American Consumer division which oversees johnsons baby powder to appear, the highest level executive directly knowledgeable about the supposed topic of todays hearing. The democrats rejected Johnson Johnsons proposal and the majority asks, to be able to testify after all. Johnson johnson refused to rearrange their schedule, rushed to rearrange the schedule so they could appear as originally proposed but later the same Day Committee democrats changed course and said she was not acceptable after all and insisted on Mister Gorski who the company repeatedly and convincingly stated is not an appropriate witness for the topic, this committee, democrats choosing today. As of democrats needed more theater on the day they announced their partisan impeachment. Johnson johnson has for the past year shown a willingness to cooperate with the committees investigation. Provided briefings and produced document requested by the majority of the company produced 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 the activities related to witness invitations and document production leading to the hearing may result in perception that the committees investigation is not about learning about the harm of Consumer Products but trying to publicly shame or embarrass the company and seek out gotcha moments to aid in ongoing litigation, something this committee has been regularly doing for the past year. I worry the committees actions raise questions whether it is using its investigative tools interfere with give the appearance of interfering with ongoing litigation. More than 15,000 liability lawsuits have been filed against Johnson Johnson over its talcum based products. This hearing is another example of the majoritys actions 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 which we have artie seen evidence of this happening. One of the majority witnesses is now citing her testimony before congress as part of her credentials regarding ongoing lawsuits. I hope the subcommittee will commit to doing its best from interfering or appearing to interfere with ongoing litigation as we move forward. Issue we are discussing here today is of the utmost importance but i hope we can approach the topic moving forward with the spirit of fairness and an eye toward hearing from witnesses who can provide the best available science and not just those engaged in ongoing litigation. I think our witnesses for appear before the subcommittee today. Thank you very much. Congresswoman maloney, the new chairwoman of the committee, i now recognize her to say a few words and give Opening Statements as well. Thank you for holding a critical hearing and thank you for the subcommittees dedication to protecting Public Health. October 25th, fbi detected as best us in Johnson Johnsons baby powder leading the company to recall 30,000 bottles. Since then, casting doubt on the accuracy that was conducted. They are safe, that is part of fdas critical role. And fdis methods and procedures. They need to explain those allegations in detail and provide the basis for their allegations. Unfortunately, alex gorski has declined subcommittees invitation to testify today. Of spoken to the fresh the press, they testified in litigation but apparently does not want to defend his companys actions today. That is unfortunate. I encourage the subcommittee to continue its important work on behalf of the American People and pledge support as they do so. Thank you for this important hearing and i yield back. Thank you, i would like to recognize Ranking Member jordan for the Opening Statement. The Ranking Member said what needed to be said. Thank you, mister jordan. Our first panel should have had the opportunity, in Johnson Johnson, Mister Gorski was aware of our interest back in march and said that our committee needed to hear their side of the story. We invited Mister Gorski to come before us but Mister Gorski is not here. Mister gorski can still make this right. He can respond quickly and thoroughly to our document request and testify before us and it is not going away. Too many people demanding too many answers to important questions, and the safety of Johnson Johnsons talking based products in serious doubt. Consequently this issue is not going away and they will press forward with its inquiry. With that we will adjourn this panel and expert witnesses will come forward to commence the next panel. Thank you. Thank you. We now resume proceedings. We are joined by a panel of witnesses that help examine the best methods to detect as best us and talc. In norfolk, virginia, speak about personal struggles to overcome mesothelioma which could have been a more sensitive test method to test for as best us and talcum power. A Lab Scientist and material Analytical Services llc which tested decades of samples of Johnson Johnsons talcum based baby powder. He will share his disturbing findings with us detecting as best us in a majority of Johnson Johnsons samples he tested. Doctor jacqueline is the chairperson of the the permit of occupational medicine, epidemiology and prevention at the donald and barbara sucker school of medicine and director of the northwell World Trade CenterHealth Program and director of the new york state funded medicine of long island clinical center. She will share her insights, with mesothelioma, male and female. She will speak about their exposures for broader lessons we must understand for Public Health. Doctor rod metcalf, geologist, in las vegas, doctor metcalf will help us understand the genesis of naturally occurring minerals often found in nature together, the dangers of postblooge if you will raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . Let the record show that 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 you are now recognized for five minutes. You have to press the button. Let me explain the lighting system here. Press the button to speak. Green means go, yellow does not mean to stop. It means speed up and read obviously please conclude. You have five minutes to speak, thank you. Ranking member and esteemed members of the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to discuss the best methods for determining asbestos and cosmetic talcum. My name is william longoh, i have a phd in material science and engineering and im the president of materials Analytical Services. I have been involved in asbestos analysis and research for over 30 years now. I have testified on behalf of plaintiff and defendants in as best us cases. Independent labs throughout the country and in the course of several decades of document the presence of asbestos and consumer talc products including johnsons baby products. Ama analytical, forensic analytical and be a scientific consultant in our lab ma as an Johnson Johnsons own consultants, Colorado School of mines, dartmouth university, crone associates, rutgers university, rgb group and others of all documented as best us in johnson and other manufacturers talk product over the course of decades. The talc industry has accumulated hundreds if not thousands of testing results that report no detectable quantifiable as best us. These reports regarded by manufacturers are very misleading as they result from analogical mythological techniques with poor detection. The question i would like to address in my testimony is why the testing methods adopted and used by the cosmetic talc industry failed to detect asbestos and what improved are not new what can ensure we are doing our best to find as best us and 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 connected, trace levels of asbestos. We should have analytical methods that achieve the highest degrees of sensitivity and lowest detection limits plausible. Let me explain. The first thing to understand is as best as fibers are very small and virtually weightless, measured in trillionths of a gram, millions and millions of asbestos fibers can be present in a single gram of talc even if the total is best us by weight is 0. 1 . Good analytical sensitivity is extremely important when looking at very small samples. How many as best us fibers must be present and how sample for the analyst to see a single fiber. The laboratories used by the Health Industry by fbi Contract Laboratory have very poor analytical sensitivity with detection limits of approximately 10 million14 million as best as fibers per gram. To detect a single is best us fiber there needs to be from 10,000 excuse me, 10 million14 million as best as fibers per gram. Any element that analytical method detection must have good sensitivity, good sensitivity for sample preparation methods doesnt allow you to see the as best us, something that is 99 talcum. And 600,000 talc particles. They will be able to see the asbestos, for analytical sensitivity. The sample preparation for heavy liquid separation. This technique can separated remove substantial talc leaving behind as best as that might be present, making it easier and quicker and that left better sensitivity. As stated the industry analytical sensitivity is between 10 million14 million as best as fibers per gram. Our laboratory using the hos cosmetics how, we have been able to increase the analytical sensitivity to approximately 4500 as best as fibers per gram. We have detected affable as best us in approximately 65 in the last three years. And it is not new to johnson and johnson, the Colorado School of mines successfully developed hos method and presented it to j and j. In the early 1970s memo, and not in their best worldwide interest to employ. And insists on using talc in cosmetic products. It is vital to the public. The most sensitive method together. Is there no dispute that this is the hls preparation method by analysis. And they can never state it does not contain asbestos only that results below the detection limit was the only solution to this problem. And cosmetic products. Thank you, representatives. Next doctor mullane. Thank you, mister krishnamoorthi, mister comer and other members of the committee. I am a boardcertified physician specializing in occupational and environmental medicine which deals with the impact of exposures on the health of individuals including as best us. As best us has caused thousands of deaths in the United States. The asbestos now act of 2019 is under consideration by congress. It is time to banish deadly substance which is best us fibers are microscopic. They could fit on abraham lincolns knows on the penny. Once these fibers are briefed in they can penetrate deeply and move throughout the body. The most of us eating disease from asbestos is mesothelioma which is cancer of the lining of the lungs or abdomen. It is a signature disease meaning asbestos exposure as the result, diagnosed with mesothelioma whether they are exposed to asbestos. Many patients sought care because they knew they would work with asbestos. For women sometimes it is easy to identify because they live with one who worked with asbestos and laundered for many women and some men they have no traditional source of asbestos exposure. As a result their campus with considered idiopathic or having no cause. There is no scientific reason for agenda discrepancy apart from workplace and could not be explained by a 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 womens mesothelioma and mens mesothelioma. This talk exposure was their only exposure to asbestos. If doctors arent aware as best us can contaminate talcum powder they dont ask about its use or consider it a source. To my knowledge there have been no studies that look at cosmetic talcum powder but to address this gap i really published an article in the journal of occupational and environmental medicine. My colleagues and i reported on 33 individuals the only source of asbestos exposure was cosmetic talc. For 6 of the 33 we tested the issue and found asbestos and talc. Years before, other scientists looked at women with mesothelioma. As best us commonly found intel compounder and stated it might be related to the use of contaminated talcum. I would like to tell you about a 66yearold woman who develop shortness of breath, weight loss and fatigue. The chest xray showed fluid surrounding her lung and she had 16 ml of fluid, 7 of these Water Bottles 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 plaque for as best as exposure. Unfortunately despite aggressive treatment she passed away two years after her diagnosis. He worked in various Industries Including tech silence tobacco and had no exposure to asbestos but she did have exposure to cosmetic talc works parttime as a hairdresser for 25 years and applied talcum powder to customers next after she cut their hair. She had cosmetic talc on her body for 30 years beginning with when her mother used talcum powder on her and later used it on herself. She stated there would be a puff of smoke and it went everywhere. It can linger after the initial application, not only the health of the youth but family members and in our study the diagnosis was 2788 years. The average years of cosmetic how use was 32. 7. Cosmetic talc use was not confined to one brand, there are 22 brands used. Patients often use more than one. Fortunately mesothelioma is very rare. 2000 new cases are diagnosed in the United States yearly. It is not curable. 5 year survival, less than 5 . In 2019, occupational medicine stated as best as fibers of 3 m or less cause risk of cancer and pulmonary disease regardless of the report of geological processes and industrial processes. What matters to me is not the nomenclature. Any part of asbestos is small enough to be inhaled is 3 times longer than its life and can cause disease including mesothelioma. Using terminology to determine cleavage fragments or escape the issue and just semantics. If it gets into the lungs the body doesnt care how fiber grew. From a medical perspective it is quite simple. Millions of individuals have been exposed to asbestos, contaminated talcum powder. There are safer alternatives that dont contain talcum powder asbestos. We identify and related to exposures, if theres any similarity of asbestos, why should we take the chance . Thank you. Happy to take questions. Thank you. We want to finish the Opening Statements, recessed briefly. Mister average. You have five minutes. Members of the subcommittee, krishnamoorthi, tuesdays are hard to find around here. I appreciate your presence today and your interest in this important topic. I am a virginian and for most of my life a presbyterian pastor, husband, father of two and grandfather, and i was diagnosed with a rare type of cancer and the only known cause of mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos. My doctors quiz to be about exposure and asked about places i had worked and lived and school, where family members worked, which dorms at the college of william and mary, at some point of exposure to asbestos, hundreds and hundreds of questions but found no explanation. As it turns out my mother was a liberal user of powder throughout her life, she used it on herself when i was an infant, she used talcum based Johnson Johnson baby powder quite liberally. When she brought me home from the hospital to the age of 3 she and my older sister covered me with baby powder every time they changed my diaper. As an assault adult, testing the product that had been used on me so long i used Johnson Johnson baby powder for a time. My sister use the power on herself and now she has Ovarian Cancer which makes you wonder, doesnt it . Since then i learned whenever talc is mine from the ground it has impurities that are mind along with it including as best us fibers. It was these fibers that got into my system and migrated to my peritoneal cavity which caused a slowgrowing tumor that debilitated me at the height of my career. Baby powder contains talc, was the source of my as best us exposure and the cause of the cancer that will kill me. Awaiting treatment doctors withdrew 6 l of fluid from my peritoneal cavity so that i could breathe until the surgery and i came here to Washington Hospital center where doctor Paul Sugarbaker performed an 11 hour surgery on me removing my spleen, my entire my pancreas and 61 2 pounds of cancer. He washed my insides with a strong solution of chemotherapy and sewed me back together for a 20 day stay in the hospital. On my 57th birthday he sent me home with a tube in my arm for 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 between 9 months later more cancer was found, cancer that cannot be remedied or radiated or cured so i resigned my position, ended the service i felt called to since the age of 16 and made my preparations to die. I understand that you all have friends who have cancer. I realize 1600 people die every single day from cancer. Im thankful that mesothelioma has not yet taken my life but cancer was caused by a product that is used on most vulnerable members of society, infants. This is the cancer that will kill me. The people who apply these products like my mother and sister are completely unaware of the suffering that may occur or the deaths but may follow as a result of simply drying a babys 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 somehow it has shown up in baby powder yet again. We owe it to our nations children, parents and every other consumer to ensure our baby powder is truly safe and as best us free. Despite decades of promises to do so, the industry has not regulated itself. Therefore you must may god bless you in your work. Thank you. Doctor metcalf, you have five minutes. Chairman krishnamoorthi, Ranking Member jordan, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me today. I hold bachelors, masters and phd degrees in geology. I served on the faculty of the department of geoscience in las vegas for 30 years. My Current Research focus is on understanding geologic processes responsible for the formation of asbestos. I am here today to discuss the geological controls and processes that form talc and as best us and the potential for talc and is best us to coexist intel form and whether it is reasonable to expect them to be free of asbestos minerals. When processing the scale that they coexist intel rich rocks is very high. Asbestos refers to six regulative regulated fibrous minerals that include the serpentine mineral and five fibrous minerals. While its always fibrous, they trembled fibers and nonfibrous that leads to this issue of fragments which i be happy to discuss during the questioning. Touted as asbestos or form by water rock interaction during a type of metamorphism called during this process the preexisting first rock is subjected to changes in temperature pressure and the hot waters. These changes drive reactions were minerals break down to form new staple minerals. The water has the capacity to alter the chemical composition of the addition and removal of dissolved components as fluid flow through the rock over time. When water rock interaction produces significant shifts in composition the process is called metasemitism and is thought to be responsible for the production of talc. Its best this form by the same water rock interactions that form talc. The questions in particular interest here today are, are talc producing reactions linked to the formation of asbestos, in other , in other words, might we expect to find asbestos in talc . The answer is yes. Many talc reactions involve the breakdown of answerable under geological conditions that are favorable from a generation of fibrous morphology, in other words, asbestos. For these reactions incomplete reaction progress result in the retention of asbestos in talc. The particles which will than in the literature and talc or are interpreted as relics of these in complete reactions. The second question, other processes capable of producing a rock of 100 pure talc . That is, a talc rock free of asbestos . The answer is yes, but only under very specific conditions geologic conditions. Talc can be produced by reactions involving the breakdown of carbonate minerals, reaction pathway that does not pass through asbestos as long as the process operates in a specific range of temperature thus meta semitism of carbonate and specific temperature could produce asbestos free talc. However, if the process has started slightly higher temperature, and for bolus asbestos can form. Its known from talc deposits formed by the alteration of these carbonate. Asbestos is considered a Health Hazard to consumers even at levels labeled as nondetect by the industry j for dash one method that we should not be surprised when were sensitive testing methods find asbestos present in talc and talc products given the formation of asbestos and talc are linked by common geologic processes. Although we often refer to asbestos as a contaminant in talc as though it were introduced, i best this can occur as a welcome part of a natural talc forming geologic processes and its presence should be anticipated. Thank you for your time today. Im available for question. Thank you very much. The committee will now stand in recess subject to the cult of the check i ask members to please return probably after the vote series. We would be back shortly. Thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] is thank you so much and sory for the pause in the proceedings. What were 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 talcbased products . No. Why is that . Theres no safe level of asbestos, period. Its a carcinogen, type i type e carcinogen and this should be no exposure. Dr. Longo, both the fda and epa agree that there is no safe for acceptable level of asbestos for human exposure, correct . That is correct. In fact, just this past year Johnson Johnson ceo was asked in a deposition whether asbestos is safe. He stated quote, i would agree that asbestos is considered unsafe. Im not an expert geologist or stage expert in that particular area but generally speaking we would say yeah, asbestos is not safe. On october 18, the fda announced it had detected asbestos in Johnson Johnson telecom par. Dr. Moline, what is the significance of this announcement . That to this day theyre theg asbestos when they go off the shelf in talcum powder and its putting thousands if not millions of people at risk in the future. Dr. Longo . That is correct. In those results verify our results the finding ample asbestos in the Johnson Johnson product from the chinese mind which is the mind that is being used today. Dr. Longo, its important with sensitive testing methods to detect any level of asbestos in Consumer Products, right . Thats correct. You personally tested historical samples of jane jays talcum powder, correct . Yes. Our laboratory has. From what decades did you test this powder . With an ally samples from the four is all the up to the 2000s as well as the current Johnson Johnson products. What did you find . Overall, 65 of all the samples we tested were positive for regular asbestos. Did you use the same asbestos detection methods as j j . No, sir we did not. How did they differ . We use what is called a a hy liquid separation technique which makes the analysis a lot more sensitive. G believe that sensitivity is essential to detecting asbestos in talc . Absolutely. Has Johnson Johnson ever acknowledge any asbestos detection tests that have concluded that the company samples contain asbestos . Not that im aware of. Just widest income you tested historical samples from the 40s through today using this hls method of detection. And in those tests you determine safety 65 of the samples contain asbestos. But on the other hand, Johnson Johnson has never acknowledged that any of the samples contain asbestos. How could that be . Not currently they have it. Certainly some other testing after consultants in the past. They dont acknowledge it. They say what were is not asbestos and out comes down to the argument of whats the geometry of the fibers versus what the call cleavage fragments. Okay. Why does that matter . Welcome on our site it doesnt matter because we are following absolute regulated protocols to identify asbestos recognized by epa, osha, the astm as the International Standards organization. Its defining what the definition is that its in this leading at best. As you know on october 18 fda announced its contract lab found asbestos in j js talcum powder. Did fdas contract lab, this is the ama firm, did they use the hls method . They did not. What kind of method that they use computer . I would call the standard method where to find a needle in a haystack. And every now then you will find that needle but it is rare. Theyve had what wouldve happened had they use the hls method of detection which is a much more sensitive method . If they had used that method in its current state they would not have found the asbestos but they couldve found of asbestos which what that method is really designed for. And again tell us what is the significance of finding one type of asbestos versus the other. No significance because theyre both regulated. The significance is that current products are being sold with trace amounts of asbestos in. So i understand, either one would be carcinogenic . Thats not my area but i think dr. Moline would tell you either one is carcinogenic. Dr. Moline, do you want to tell us if either one is carcinogenic. All of the forms of asbestos are carcinogenic. Thank you. Let me now, congresswoman miller, for five minutes of questions. Thank you, chairman. The Oversight Committee has long played an important part of overseeing the role government plays in protecting the public. Congress has mandated the fda 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, todays 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 the offer to provide over 300,000 more. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle declined to receive it. 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 , and again has bn unfortunately denied. This hearing does that 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. Todays hearing is not the role of this committee and and i lok 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, is it true that in the early 2000s testified under oath that talc containing asbestos was an urban legend . [inaudible] yes, maam, i did. What has changed since then . What has changed since then is weve been using and much more sensitive method and that was at the time that we did not receive or have the opportunity to look at thousands and thousands of Johnson Johnson confidential documents showing that the their own testing of r own products in their own minds had regular asbestos in it. We were not using the most sensitive techniques. Since that time in three years we have analyzed over 109 Johnson Johnson bottles and found 65 of them positive for regulated asbestos use heavy liquid density separation. In many other talc company. How long has that testing been available . It was initially been available since come for Johnson Johnson when their consultants in 1973, in 1974, develop the heavy liquid density separation method for affable asbestos and presented it to Johnson Johnson. Buddy 2000 what we are asked if youre familiar with the asbestos content of cosmetics, use it in my field i have pickets were like an urban legend about the talc and cosmetics containing carmelites pick up their been able to verify that. Yes, maam i did say that back in 2001 and again thats 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 73 and 74 and speakers have you ever tested a talc mine . No milk i have. Lab ever test of johnson just part that is been asbestos . Yes, we have tested many Johnson Johnson products that we have confirmed positive for asbestos us was other laboratories. Dr. Moline, in your written testimony you cite a study i doctor rightly the says doctor a does not cause cancer come is a quick . Im not sure what study you are referring to pick the said i was referring to is from early work he did he analyze the lung tissue women with mesothelioma. This was in 2019 specifically and august 2019, the doctors did he and his fellow researchers identify no evidence of any positive role of cosmetic talc in malignant mesothelioma. Well i think that doctors may disagree on that and i think the way the evidence is to the contrary, but hes entitled to his opinion. Thank you. I yield back my time. Thank you, congresswoman miller. Now congresswoman presley, you have five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing today and respectfully i disagree with my colleague across the aisle. I think this is very exact Vehicle Forum with the sort of oversight is supposed to take place. This is the committee where we pursue truth and justice for the American People and is been a great injustice done to many. And so im 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, the lights of the loved ones. Today we first grade test me from people like mr. Etheridge. Let me say what im sorry, sorry for the page of it or because your trust in the company that placed profits over your very life. And safety. When Johnson Johnson asked people to trust them, the fda should have said, show us. Show was that your products are not hazards. When they refuse to do this, when Research Shows that asbestos is showing up on the talc and beta country baby powder, Johnson Johnson tried to discredit it. They look for ways to sell more of it and they set their sights on why can the span. I hope you are watching today because we still want answers and thats exactly why we earlier submitted a letter and we plan comes with 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 companies greed. They deserve to be held accountable. Pastor etheridge i know youre to step away from the pulpit but i could argue as a woman of faith that your ministry continues as evidenced by her testimony here today. Could you share with us, what were your initial symptoms . My initial symptoms were unexplained weight loss. I never lost weight by accident in my entire life. I had fever, shortness of breath and fatigue. And so was there any context around this . We on a a trip or something . We were on vacation in hawaii and 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. Later determined upon my maternal that it was mesothelioma. Thank you. I have some more questions and due to the interest of time, if you please read and to them as succinctly as possible, preferably with a yes or no answer. Did you consult additional doctors when you return from vacation . Yes. Did your doctor discuss with you the cause of mesothelioma . Yes. Have you ever been exposed to asbestos in your profession as a pastor . No. How long have you been a pastor . I was a pastor for 33 years. How often would use Johnson Johnson talcum baby powder and for what purpose . Maybe two or three times a week to powder my genitals after i showered. Common. I can im so sorry for the pain jeopardy to her as a lawmaker the power of having pain driving our policy solutions as well as the general accountability given the jurisdiction or reach of this committee. Said just for the record comes you spoke to this in your earlier testimony but but i tht bears repeating. Do you believe Johnson Johnson talcbased baby powder college of mesothelioma . Yes, i am convinced of that. If you are putting to make to prevent of the people from using products that cost method c vilma, what would you do . At the very least we should make it the use of talc or at warning labels to the product but ideally we need to get the stuff off the shelves. All right. We will certainly do every eveg we can to ensure justice for you and your family. God bless you. Thank you. Thank you and i get. Thank you for a move could use remained at the time couple of questions. Dr. Longo, when was the first nonreporting of asbestos in changing talcum powder made public . First known reporting. The for support ethnic was only recently, public. Was that positive asbestos i conducted by independent lab . Yes, sir it was. Let me ask you this in response to a couple questions that you were asked. I think that they mention that earlier in 2001 you had indicated that you were not aware of asbestos in talc powder but then after reviewing documentary evidence as was conducting additional tests you then learned of the presence of asbestos in talc powder. Do you want to say anything more about that . Yes. It was early on and as scientists we keep our mines open and there was a published paper in 20142015 that i became interested in it and final in 2016 decided to go ahead but had to look for more sensitive method and thats where the liquid heavy density separation method came in. Thank you, dr. Longo. Now i will recognize mr. Grothman for five minutes. Thank you. This is a very interesting committee on oversight. You never know what you can to get, a different topic every day. Im a little bit disappointed here and i will say this because of course people back home are watching. Interesting film 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. Gorski to testify but not surprising Johnson Johnson wanted an expert and a ac were three doctors testifying today. They wanted their own expert to be able to testify that are usually two sides to every story. I think the expert was won by the name of kathy witmer. For whatever motivation, kathy is that you today. She was not allowed to testify and to think its disappointed because i can hear openminded. I wanted to hear both sides of the story. I assume of both sides to the story. As understand it there are four or five times in which an Appellate Court has ruled on this situation and all four 45, theyve ruled in favor of Johnson Johnson. Im as jaded about courses anybody but when i so when people have come when judges have time to review briefs, may be reaped hundreds of pages on this topic, and they decide again theres something there, theres a story that i should be able to hear. And i resent the fact im not able to hear that story. I dont think its out of line for Johnson Johnson to say we dont want our ceo to testify. We have three doctors testifying. We want our own doctor but we did hear their own doctor and i will just say one more time that its disappointing, in case anybody is paying attention to this hearing, paying attention to the series at home for the home viewing audience, that they are aware that were getting one side of the story today. I will plunge ahead with that one side and see what i can you from these folks. As i understand it, for five times on appeal judges decided that plaintiffs did not have a Strong Enough case overruled against planus. I have other questions but i will ask, because we dont have the people on Johnson Johnson site here but i ask, say dr. Longo, why on appeal does Johnson Johnson keep winning these cases . Again, my understand is the appeal had to do with jurisdiction issues, not anything to do with the science and thats just my understandin understanding. Okay. They sometimes have one before juries as well. Juries dont always get right with their juries listen to all the evidence, not just fiveminute questions from congressman and me, or sometimes deciding Johnson Johnson is not done anything wrong in these cases. Dr. Longo, i hope this isnt true but we were provided some stuff in advance. Yes, i do. Mas makes money testifying or providing evidence before trial of this nature . Yes, we do provide expert that bill for the time. Could i find out how much on this cases how much you build out total to claim that Johnson Johnson is negligent in these cases . I believe mas has billed for all its research and development, and Sample Analysis and 100,000, 200,000, 10 million, 300 million . Theres all sorts of numbers out there. How much has been built out on this matter . I would estimate in the two years, 2017, 2018 and 2019, i would estimate somewhere, 1 million, 1. 2. Okay. I think. Thats an estimate. Somebody gave me something, maybe theyre like. They are saying total mas may have build out as much as 30 million what youre saying its only one or 2 million . Thats too difficult. Mas mas started in 1988 and 31 years would probably, we have, we have averaged 1 million in litigation. But you have to understand we are 20,000 square foot laboratory. We have speedy i understand you have expenses. When people told me you might have build up 30 million to take a side on this matter, are they lying to me or is it about 30 million . I wont call somebody of my but that is just not true. If i had built purse with 30 million speed is not personally. The company. The company has not built a 30 million in false speedy 20 million. Was no. I was in the three the Johnson Johnson litigation maybe 1. 5 million. Okay. Thank you much. I hope someday we do have a chance to hear from ms. Whitmire. Thank you. Them and or osha has the option to provide a witness. They declined to do so today. Nobody. Now were going to call on congresswoman for five minutes. Thank you so much trouble. I do sincerely appreciate you using this committee to elevate the voice of people like the pastor here and others have been impacted. Its hard for me to sometimes sit here and here folks kind of be the defendant lawyers for the corporations. How much money, millions and millions of dollars did Johnson Johnson make, and poisoning people . I mean literally why are we not asking the question . You cant get away from the facts. Fda found asbestos in baby powder. Remember, its baby powder. That even its baby powder. Not only that, they later on, for the more report state asbestos was detected one of the test Johnson Johnson itself conducted using samples from the same bottle as the fda. Okay . Fact. Fda is coming to us saying this, okay . Are we going to save his fda no. These are folks trying to protect the public. That is a job, to protect the public. Johnson johnson contracted with rg labs rj deviated from its data testing procedures in order to deliver russian result of the request of the company. Check this out. Their scientist did Johnson Johnson wanted quote very rapid turnaround for obvious reasons. Then the lab found asbestos in its simple but later retracted its results and claimed initial false detection was due to and by most contaminants in one of its testing roots. Johnson johnson discredited its own company that they hired and contracted epic the discredited rj lee and initial finding blaming asbestos detection all kinds of stuff that what we say in detroit is bs. Dr. Longo, have you a valley would this particular rg pretesting report . Yes, i yes, i have. I mean, do you see what the problem here . They found asbestos, correct . They detected asbestos in the actual talc samples and then there controls are blanks. When they were analyzing they did not detect asbestos. Samples of a bottle of Johnson Johnson baby powder have tested positive in two separate labs, correct . I know yes, in the ama lad as the rg lead lap. And Johnson Johnson accuses both labs been contended with asbestos. I i know. Dr. Longo, i mean, wow. Like, i am just, ive only been here a year but i am just so taken aback that my colleagues dont even see it. I cant even make this stuff up. This is factual. I cant even make it to. These fda folks are not the public as a democrat. They are government officials doing their job. Thats what theyre supposed to be doing. They are Public Servants doing exactly what theyre 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 dont expect defendant lawyers for Johnson Johnson who basically poison people. They expect us to defend them, to protect them. And we have to be realized like how much money do they make off of the human suffering of people . My god, pastor, 33 years pastoring people. I hope this for you, your continuing your work for the people by talking about this in the very proud way for your own personal experience. I am just, chairman, i cannot stress enough just how important it is that this committee issued for good and this is exactly what we are doing. Were sharing exactly what is happening to give up because of this. And you want to come up with these 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 to 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 will tell you ive been here, they have every opportunity to bring their own witnesses for. I went and asked who was the witness . They said they will have one. They had every opportunity, the republicans, to put some appear to talk about this. So i am very passionate about this. I can just tell you for my district folks, i have very strong resulting people. They are the people that cut targeted by Johnson Johnson. They are the ones that they thought was disposable forprofits. So im not going to keep my mouth shut or try to say this aint fair. No. Its the fda found asbestos, shouldnt that be enough to ask thank you, chairman. Thank you, congresswoman tlaib. Well go to a second round of equation is in finish up here. It is true, by my nordic did not call a single witness whether who was from Johnson Johnson or anybody. So they have the opportunity they declined, and, of course, as i know the ceo has opined on this issue multiple times. He will go to the media. He will go in other fora and talk about this but he does want to talk about it in congress. Thats the problem. Now, let me just ask a couple more questions here. Mr. Etheridge, at the time that you had used Johnson Johnson baby powder, did you have any inkling whatsoever about this presence of asbestos in its powder . There was no reason for me to suspect this hazard. They are known as the baby company. In fact, they advertise the powder in a way that makes it seem like its as pure as any material out there. And obviously thats why moms and families apply it to babies, right . I used it on my own children, sure. I think i hear some my colleagues saying the same thing. I think generations of families have used it. Around the world. Dr. Longo, 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. When you like to comment on i think their suggestion that somehow your testimony is really motivated by money as opposed to what you have discovered in your scientific testing . No. Our practice is not motivated by money. We to participate in litigation 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 today for the optical microscopes. We have to pay the rent. Im not sure of a lot of these folks is that what 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 italics would have this kind of asbestos levels in them. It wasnt until i get in it, didnt realize it was the detection limits that was the problem. That the trace amounts of asbestos in the detection limits was causing all the laughs that were analyzing it at the time to think there was nothing there. Using the best detection methods that we are now seeing that these minerals are there and you cant predict when youll find it or not. Its almost, almost in the qs. The only way to get rid of the problem and be sure in my opinion that there is no more exposures to this is to eliminate talc from these cosmetic products. Okay. Dr. Moline, its pretty clear that mesothelioma can only because by one material, and that is asbestos, correct . Thats basically true. Theres some evidence that folks who have undergone therapeutic radiation may be at increased risk. There is no study that looks at the combination of those two. The some folks that if at both, and is at an increased risk or intransitive outside products in the United States, asbestos is the only product that we are aware of that causes mesothelioma, although theres some question if some other minerals that are found in minnesota. I see. But its about 99 or more. Okay. And dr. Metcalf, i think that you talked about the mineral mining and i think they do some my colleagues will talk about this further, but talc and asbestos are naturally occurring together, correct . Thats correct. Its like you cant mind talc without mining asbestos in the same process. Well, i did outline a very narrow set of conditions where talc might be produced without the lease without asbestos, but for most of the geologic settings were talc forms, we very much expect to find asbestos minerals with it because it is the minerals that are breaking down to form talc. Ic. And let me add that these processes are taking place almost at the atomic scale of these minerals are growing, bt we are mining the stuff with the drills and front end loaders and blasting and dump trucks, and so to be able to assure the way dre material we are mining is free of this, we need to test lots of it because theres lots of heterogeneity, too. We may test one sample and it may be pure talc. We may test another sample and it may have asbestos into. And so its the heterogeneities that make this a real problem. Very good. Now i will recognize congresswoman pressley for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to say associate myself with the impassioned detroit tell it like it is comments of congresswoman tlaib a moment ago and completely disassociate myself with the comments offered by my colleague across the aisle. I find that have that dual experience often on this committee of comparable pride of honoring the words of our late chairman and being an 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 the whats and desire expressed earlier to center the science, id like to ask some line of questioning in line with that. It is reported that Johnson Johnson talc tested positive for asbestos as far back as 1957 in 1958. Yet on whether locations lots of tested samples in the same battle of Johnson Johnson talcbased powder and come to different conclusions. As congresswoman tlaib mentioned in her impassioned testimony or statement, Johnson Johnson commission its own studies with samples from the same bottle and predictably announced their samples tested negative for asbestos. Notably, Johnson Johnson on commissioner clyburn also detected asbestos in one of the Companies Examples yet later attributed the false positive to environmental contaminants often airconditioning unit. Dr. Longo, how are the virgin detection result possible when two samples from the same bottle are tested for asbestos . If you have trace levels and you are using an and sensitive method, you can have one sample will be detected and then another you may not see that. So its very hard to say especially if you have laboratory that did detected and then did detected. So cant really compare apples to apples. How close were related our c and asbestos . Very closely related. As i said, many of the reactions that form talc metamorphic reaction to form talc are breaking down answerable under the Current Conditions that make them fibrous. I will say i came to this not to look at talc, not because i was interested in talc but because is interested in understanding why there sometimes fibers and sometimes not fibrous, what are they fibrous cords as i started to do literature review and theres a lot of papers published in the 70s and 80s and in the early 90s the looked at this with highresolution transmission electron microscopes, and i kept running into textures and understanding that we went from nonfibrous the fibrous to talc and it was a reaction sequence that ended in talc. Thats what got me interested and i really wasnt paying attention to the talc stories and any stuffed toy kaepernick into this in the literature. So yes asbestos and talc are linked by geologic processes. So talc and asbestos are often the same . Yes, thats correct. Okay. What if i am processes cause it to evolve into asbestos and talc . The process thats involved is something called hydrothermal alteration. Its a type of metamorphism when a preexisting rock is subjected to different conditions of pressure and temperature, and particularly fluid flows pixel over the course of the metamorphism, fluids are passing through the rock and its the reaction of those fluids with the problem with that tristate processes. All all this minerals are hydrous minerals. During the rock evolution asbestos can become talc . Right. Okay. Ill add one thing is again i said the summit Opening Statement we often talk about asbestos is being a contaminant in the talc as though it were, felt out of an air conditioner, for instance, some foreign body that was introduced but the reality is, the way talc forms, it forms, the road to talc leads through asbestos. So its a relic of the geologic process, not a contaminant from some foreign body. So again just to be clear, this will be my final question. Is it the case and i could to say that talc cannot reliably be asbestos free . I wouldnt go quite that far. There are some reactions that have potential and its been reported that they are asbestos free versus theres a mine in montana. However, i dont think anybody has ever tested to the sensitivity that dr. Longo has been discussing. Of the ones that people say are asbestos free i think thats happened princeton street . The responsibility is to do the best testing possible and make sure that these things are asbestos free. But i would be surprised if we could fight it and that is asbestos free. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, congresswoman. Now congresswoman tlaib, five and. Thank you so much of it i do for the record, with no objection, mother jones article where it shows Johnson Johnson has poured money into directly influencing federal lawmakers. So far this year the company has spent 100,000. 100,000. Id like to submit the article. Without objection, so ordered. Id like to submit a press statement from the Michigan Attorney general who announced a 3 million share of multistate settlement with Johnson Johnson and its subsidiary according is that okay . Without objections. Thank you, chairman. But according to the statement looks like Johnson Johnson and its subsidiaries to pay over 3 million, for deceptive marketing of transvaginal surgical mesh devices. The total moral state some is nearly 116. 9 million. I want to short powder of this company show a pattern of this company and a note this is critically important to show, now they have subsidiaries so we have to now worry about whether or not indus instances that they are exposing people to devices and the chemicals that are very toxic and harmful. I know that weve been talking a lot about testing what you think is critically important because it gives credibility to the pastors claim as to others with come forth to say i am sick because of being exposed to this product. In 2009 and 2010, fda conducted the survey of talc products for asbestos testing and record your fda selected ama labs to conduct its testing for all three surveys. Just last month ama detected asbestos in a sample of Johnson Johnsons talc powder. In its public, request for quote, solicitation posting for asbestos, testing, the fda stated quote, it is not prepared 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 . I am familiar with i need a big note that says first push talk button. Optionally with that request for proposal and personally with the detection limits that ama has for the analysis they did in 2010. Ama labs can sisley contracted with in 2009, employee what you consist of a sensitive asbestos testing methods available . No, they are not. Their 2010 work for fda, the detection limit was approximately 10,000 excuse me, 10 million asbestos fibers per graham of talc to find one fiber. What if you have detected asbestos in the samples earlier in the time they use more sensitive detection method . In my opinion yes. Is a Scientific Consensus as to which asbestos detection method is more sensitive . I believe the consensus would be that 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. Why is it essentially useful sensitive methods . Its clear to me, so we can find it, right . So you can find it and also ugly because its hard to create grass run the fact that something that is at trace levels you can still have hundreds of millions of asbestos fibers because they are so small and waste a little. Do you believe the heavy liquid density separation method which we just talk to is most sensitive method available and using international that is what has been seen as the process . Yes, i do. Just to get more deeper and i cant believe this is stuff my son would love, my 14 year old. This is of my area. I just know i just want to speak up for them. How does the sensitivity of high liquid density separation method detect asbestos and samples that would otherwise test negative for asbestos . If you have detection limit of 10 million14 million, that would eliminate almost 95 of the samples that we found that were positive. If we had to have that detection limit. The heavy liquid density separation method weve been able to increase that sensitivity between 20003000 times. Thats why we are now seeing what i believe is the reason why people have not been seen in the past. Okay. Thank you so much, chairman pearce i yield the rest of what the. 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 the 30 important hearing. I 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 asked our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you are able. This hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] weeknights this week we are featuring booktv programs on cspan2. Tonight the theme is the supreme court. Watch tonight begin at eight eastern on cspan2 and enjoy booktv this week and every weekend on cspan2. Next, political host its annual women rule summit with members of congress, journalists and women executives. This portion of event featured women in media and how men can assist in their success. Its about 35 minutes. [applause] hey, everybody again. Just ran behind to get back your in time. Its great to be here as the voice of god said i am in at this point on Carrie Budoff brown, editor of politico and im thrilled to be a for the seventh annual women rule su