Dr. Moline, is there any safe level of asbestos in consumer talcbased products . No. And why is that . Theres no safe level of asbestos period. Its a carcinogen. Its a type 1 carcinogen and there should be no exposure. Dr. Longo, both the fda and the epa agree that there is no safe or acceptable level of asbestos for human exposure, correct . That is correct. In fact, just this past year, Johnson Johnsons 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 safety expert in that particular area. But generally speaking, we would say, yeah, asbestos is not safe. On october 18th, the fda announced it had detected asbestos in j js talcum powder. Dr. Moline, what is the significance of this announcement . That to this day, theyre finding 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. And those results verify our results of finding asbestos in the Johnson Johnsons product from the chinese mine, which is the mine thats being used today. Dr. Longo, its important that we have sensitive testing methods to detect any level of asbestos in consumer products, right . Yes, sir, thats correct. And you personally tested historical samples of j js talcum powder, correct . Yes, our laboratory has. And from what decades did you test this powder . We have analyzed samples from the 40s all the way up to the 2000s, as well as the as well as the current Johnson Johnson products. And what did you find . Overall, 65 of all the samples we tested were positive for regulated asbestos. Did you use the same asbestos detection methods as j j . No, sir, we did not. And how did they differ . We used what is called a heavyliquid separation technique, which makes the analysis a lot more sensitive. And do you believe that sensitivity is essential to detecting asbestos in talc . Absolutely. Now, has Johnson Johnson ever acknowledged any asbestosdetection tests that have concluded that the companys samples contain asbestos . Not that im aware of. So just so i understand, youve tested historical samples from the 40s through today using this hls method of detection. And in in those tests, youve determined 65 of those samples contain asbestos. But on the other hand, Johnson Johnson has never acknowledged that any of their samples contain asbestos. How could that be . Not currently, they havent. Certainly, some of their testing of consultants in the past. They dont acknowledge it. They say what we are testing is really not asbestos and now it comes down to the argument of whats the g the excuse me the geometry of the fibers versus what they call cleavage fragments. Okay. And why does that matter . Well, on our side, it doesnt matter because were following absolute, regulated protocols to identify asbestos recognized by epa, osha, the astm, as well the International Standards organization. Its a defining in what the definition is. Its misleading at best. Okay. Now, as you know, on october 18th, 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 did they use, do you know . I would call it the standard method where you have to find a needle in a haystack. And every now and then, youll find that needle. But its rare. And theyve had, in a rare event in my opinion, that they found the needle in this particular bottle. So what would have happened had they used the hls method of detection, which is a much more sensitive method . If they had used that method as in its current state, they would not have found the asbestos. But they could have found the amphable asbestos, which is 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 it. Just so i understand, either one would be carcinogenic. Thats not my area. I think dr. Moline would tell you that either one is carcinogenic. Dr. Moline, you want to tell us if either one is carcinogenic . All the forms of asbestos are carcinogenic. Thank you. Let me now congresswoman miller for five minutes of questions. Thank you, chairman krishnamoorthi. The Oversight Committee has long played an important part of overseeing the role government plays in protecting the public. Congress has mandated the food and Drug Administration be the responsible one for regulating certain products, including consumer cosmetics that use talc. While the committee has the jurisdiction to complete this oversight on the possibility of asbestos in talc, 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 have offered to provide over 300,000 more. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle declined to receive them. Johnson johnson has also offered to have its own experts in asbestos testing appear in front of this committee to provide real documentation and evidence. And, again, has been unfortunately denied. This hearing does not help consumers and it is neither the right form, 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 i look forward to the opportunity to perform the oversight duties that the American People elected us to do in order to keep us safe. Dr. Longo, is it true that in the early 2000s, you testified, under oath, that talccontaining asbestos was an urban legend . Yes, maam, i did. What has changed since then . What has changed since then is weve been using a much more sensitive method and that was at the time that we did not receive or have the opportunity to look at thousands of thousands of Johnson Johnson confidential documents showing that their own testing, of their own products and their own mines, had regulated asbestos in it. And we were not using the the most sensitive techniques. And since that time, in three years, we have analyzed over 109 Johnson Johnson bottles and found 65 of em positive for regulated asbestos using heavyliquid heavyliquid density separation. And many other cosmetic talc company. How long has that that testing been available . It was initially been available since for Johnson Johnson, when their consultants, in 1973. In 1974, developed the heavyliquid density separation method for ample asbestos and presented it to Johnson Johnson. But in 2001, when you were asked if you were familiar with the content of asbestos cosmetics, you said in my field i have. Its sort of like an urban legend about the talcs in cosmetics containing termalight. 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 heavyliquid density separation process that was presented to them in 73 and 74. Have you ever visited a talc mine that supplies Johnson Johnson product . No, maam, i havent. Has your lab ever tested a Johnson Johnson product that has been confirmed positive for asbestos . Yes, we have tested many Johnson Johnson products that we have confirmed positive for asbestos, as well as other laboratories. Dr. Moline, in your written testimony, you cite a study by dr. Victor rogley, but dr. Rogley says that cosmetic talc does not cause cancer, is that correct . Im not sure what study youre referring to. The study i was referring to was from early work he did where he analyzed the lung tissue of women with mesothelioma. This was in 2019. Specifically, in august of 2019, dr. Rogley stated that he and his fellow researchers identify no evidence of any causative role of cosmetic talc in malignant mesothelioma. I think that doctors may disagree on that and i think the weight of 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 pressly, 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 the very exact vehicle and forum where this sort of oversight is supposed to take place. This is the committee where we pursue truth and justice for the American People. And there has been a great injustice done to many. And so 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 or the lives of their loved ones. Today, we have heard brave testimony from people like pastor etheridge. And let me say what mr. Gorski wouldnt. Im sorry. Im sorry for the pain you have endured because you put your trust in a company that placed profits over your very life. And safety. When Johnson Johnson asked people to trust them, the fda should have said show us. Show us that your products arent hazardous. And when they refused to do this, when research showed that asbestos was showing up on their talcum baby powder, rather than inform the public, Johnson Johnson tried to discredit it. They looked for ways to sell more of it. And they set their sights on black and hispanic women. Mr. Gorski, i hope you are watching today because we still want answers. And thats exactly why representative of illinois and i earlier submitted a letter that we planned submitted a letter so that we can continue to get to the bottom of this and to demand answers and accountability for those who have been harmed by Johnson Johnson because of their companys greed. And they deserve to be held accountable. Pastor etheridge, i know you had to step away from the pulpit but i could argue, as a woman of faith, that your ministry continues. As evidence by your 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 and was there was there any other context around this . Were you going on a trip or something . We were on vacation in hawaii and had some was taking a antibiotics and my symptoms, instead of getting better, were getting worse. So we went to an e. R. And i was diagnosed with cancer at that time. Later when i returned home, it was determined it was mesothelioma. Thank you. I have some more questions and due to the interest of time, if youll please try to answer them as succinctly as possible, preferably with a yes or no answer. Did you consult additional doctors when you returned from vacation . Yes. Did your doctor discuss with you the causes 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 in adulthood would you use Johnson Johnsons talcum baby powder and for what purpose . Maybe two or three times a week to powder my genitals after i showered. Common. Again, im so sorry for the pain you have endured. As a lawmaker, i know the power of having those closest to the pain driving our policy solutions, as well as the general accountability given the jurisdiction or reach of this committee. So just for the record, and you spoke to this in your earlier testimony but i think it bears repeating. Pastor etheridge, do you believe Johnson Johnsons talcbased baby powder caused your mesothelioma . Yes, i am convinced of that. If you the chance to prevent other people from using products that cause mesothelioma, what would you do . Ideally, we need to get this stuff off the shelves. All right. Well, well certainly do everything we can to ensure justice for you and your family. God bless you. Thank you and i yield. Thank you, congresswoman. Im going to use the remainder of your time for a couple questions here. Dr. Longo, when was the first known reporting of asbestos in j j talcum powder made public . I keep forgetting. The first reporting i think was only recently. Public. And was that positive asbestos finding conducted by an independent lab . Yes, sir, it was. And let me ask you this. In response to a couple questions that you were asked, i think that they they mentioned that earlier in 2001, you had indicated that you werent aware of asbestos in talc powder. But then after reviewing documentary evidence, as well as conducting additional tests, you then learned of the presence of asbestos in talc powder. Do you want to say anything more about that . Yes. It was early on and as scientists, we keep our minds open. And then the there was a published paper in 2014, 2015 that i became interested in. Finally, in 2016, decided to go ahead. But had to look for a more sensitive method and thats where the liquid heavy density separation method came in. Thank you, dr. Longo. Now, i will recognize mr. Growthman for five minutes. Thank you. This is a very interesting committee on oversight. You never know what youre going to get. A different topic every day. I am a little bit disappointed here and ill say this because of course people back home are watching. This is being filmed and we have four people testifying today. As i understand it, and of course you know we sometimes meet with people in our offices prior to these hearings. Johnson johnson had an expert they wanted to have testify. I understand Majority Party wanted mr. Gorki, i think was his name, the ceo to testify. But not surprising, Johnson Johnson wanted a expert. And i see we have three doctors testifying today. They wanted their own expert to be able to testify. There are usually two sides to every story. I think their expert was a woman by the name of kathy widmer. And for whatever motivation, kathy is not here today. She was not allowed to testify. And i think its disappointing because i came here open minded. I wanted to hear both sides of the story. I assume theres both sides to the story. As i understand it, there are four or five times in which an Appellate Court has ruled on this situation. And all four or five times, theyve ruled in favor of Johnson Johnson. Now, im as jaded about courts as anybody. But i assume that when people have when judges have time to review briefs, maybe read hundreds of pages on this topic, and they decide against the plaintiffs, theres something there. Theres a story that i should be able to hear. And i resent a little bit of the fact that 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 didnt hear their own doctor. And ill ill just say one more time that thats disappointing. And in case anybody is paying attention to this hearing at home, for our homeviewing audience, that they are aware that were getting one side of the story today. Ill plunge ahead with that one side and and see what i can hear from these folks. As i understand it, four or five times on appeal, judges decided that plaintiffs did not have a Strong Enough case or ruled against plaintiffs. I have other questions, too, but ill ask because we dont have the people on Johnson Johnson side, could i ask, say, dr. Longo. Why on appeal does Johnson Johnson seem to keep winning these cases . I keep doing it. Again, my understanding is the appeal had to do with jurisdiction. Issues. Not anything to do with the science. And thats just my understanding. Okay. And sometimes before juries, as well. Juries dont always get it right but there are juries who listen to all the evidence. Not just fiveminute question from congressmen and they are sometimes deciding that Johnson Johnson has not done anything wrong in these cases. Dr. Longo, and i i hope this isnt true but, you know, were provided some stuff in advance here. You you own a company m. A. S. Or have a 75 in m. A. S. , is that true . Yes, sir, i do. Okay. And m. A. S. Makes money testifying or providing evidence before trials of this nature . Yes, sir, we do provide experts that bill for their time. Yeah. Could i find out how much on these cases, how much you billed out total to to claim that Johnson Johnson is negligent in these cases . I believe m. A. S. Has billed for all its research and development and and Sample Analysis 100,000 . A million . Ten million . 30 million . There are all sorts of numbers around out there. How much have you guys, about, billed out to on this on this matter . I would estimate, in the two years, 2017, 2018, and 2019, i would estimate somewhere a million. Million point two. I think thats an estimate. Total of now, somebody gave me something. Maybe theyre lying. Theyre saying total mas may have billed out as much as 30 million but youre saying its only 1 or 2 million . Well, thats two different questions. Mas started in 1988. And for 31 years, weve probably we have we have averaged a Million Dollars in litigation. But you have to understand were 20,000squarefoot laboratory. I understand you got expenses. We have when people tell me you might have billed out 30 million to to take a side on this matter, are they lying to me . Or is it about 30 million . I wont call somebody a liar but thats just not true. If i had billed, personally, 30 million, i think not personally, the company. If the company had billed the company has not billed 30 million involved in Johnson Johnson. 20 million . No. I would say in the three years for the Johnson Johnson litigation, maybe 1. 5 million.