Transcripts For CSPAN2 House Oversight Hearing On Carcinogen

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 Johnsons Research International Market 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 Majority Johnson 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 Center Health 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