No. Why is that . Theres no safe level of asbestos period. Its a carcinogen. Its a type one carcinogen and there should be no exposure. Just this past year, johnson and johnson ceo was asked 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 area but we would say yeah, its not safe. On october 18th, the fda announced it detected asbestos in j and j talcum powder. Whats the significance of this . To this day theyre finding asbestos when they go off the shelf. Its putting thousands, if not millions of people at risk in the future. Dr. Longo. Thats correct. Those rulesults verify our resus of finding asbestos in the products in the chinese mind chr mine which is the mine being used today. You tested historical samples. Yes. From what decade . From the 40s up to the 2000s as well as the current johnson and johnson products. 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 and j . No, sir, we did not. How did they differ . We used what is called a heavy liquid separation technique which makes the analysis a lot more sensitive. Do you believe that sensitivity is essential to detecting asbestos and talc . Absolutely. Has johnson and johnson ever acknowledged any detection tests that have concludesed the company samples contain asbestos . Not that im aware of. Youve tested40s through today. Correct. Using this hls method of detection. In those tests you determined 65 of those samples contain asbest asbestos. On the other hand johnson and johnson has never acknowledged that any of their samples contain asbestos. How could that be . Not currently we havent. Certainly some of their dtestin of consul tantantss in the past. They dont acknowledge it. They say what were testing is not asbestos. Why does that matter . Well, on our side it doesnt matter were following regulated protocols to identify asbestos identified by epa, osha as well as the National Standards organization. Its defining what the definition is. Its misleading, at best. As you know on october 18th, fda announced its contract lab found asbestos in the talcum powder. Did they use the hls method . They did not. What kind of method did they use . I would call it the standard method where you have to find a needle in a hay stack. Every now and then youll find that needle and its rare. Theyve had a rare event, in my opinion. They found the needle in this particular bottle. What would have happened had they used the hls detection which is much more sensitive . If they used that method in its current state, they would not have found the asbestos which is what the method is really designed for. They are both regulated. The significance is the current products are being sold with trace amounts of asbestos in it. Either one would be carcinogenic . Thats not my air. I think dr. Molin would tell you either one is. You want to tell us. All of the forms are carcinogenic. Let me now congresswoman miller for five minutes. 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 and talcs todays hearing does nothing to accomplish that goal. Johnson and 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. More colleagues on the other side of the aisle declined to receive them. Johnson and 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 in the early 2000s you testified under oath that talc containing asbestos was an urban legend . Yes, i did. What has changed since then in. What has changed since then is we have been using a much more sensitive method. That was at the time we did not receive or have the opportunity to look at thousands of thousands of johnson and johnson confidential documents showing their own testing of their own products and their own lines had regulated asbestos in it. We were not using the most sensitive techniques. Since that time in three years we have analyzed over 109 johnson and johnson bottles and found 65 of them for regulated asbestos using heavy liquid density separation. How long has that testing been available . It was initially been available since for johnson and johnson when their consultants in 1973 and 1974 developed a heavy liquid density separation method. In 2001, when asked if you were familiar with the asbestos content of sort of like an urba legend about talcs containing term light. Ive never been able to verify that. Yes, maam, i did say that back in 2001. 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 em 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 pressley, 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 endu 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 asbestos was showing up in their talcum baby powder, 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 plan 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 a 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 antibiotics. And my symptoms, instead of getting better, were getting worse. And so we went to an e. R. And i was diagnosed with cancer at that time. It was later determined upon my return home that 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 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 a convinced of that. And if you ever the opportunity to make policy changes to prevent other people from using products that cause mesothelioma, what would you do . At the very least, we should regulate the use of talc or add warning labels to the products. But ideally, we need to get the 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. 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. First reporting was only recently public. And was that 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 in the there was a published paper in 20142015. And then i became interested in it. And then 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. Grothman 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. Im 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. There is 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 paying attention to 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 here, could i ask, say, dr. Longo, why, on appeal, does Johnson Johnson seem to keep winning these cases . I keep doing that. And, 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 they sometimes won before juries, as well. Again, juries dont always get it right but theyre juries who listen to all the evidence. Not just, you know, fiveminute questions from congressmen. And they are sometimes deciding that Johnson Johnson has not done anything wrong on these cases. Dr. Longo, and i i hope this isnt true but, you know, were provided some stuff in advance here. You own a company mas over have 75 in mas, is that true . Yes, sir, i do. Okay. And mas makes money testifying or providing evidence before trials of this nature. Yes 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 mas has billed for all its research and development and and Sample Analysis and 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 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. 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 a 20,000 square foot laboratory. I understand you got expenses. When people tell me that you mightve 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 has billed the company has not billed 30 million involved with Johnson Johnson. 20 million . Total . I would say maybe 1. 5 million. Thank you much. I hope someday we do have a chance to hear from ms. Widmer. Well, thank you. And the minority always has the option to provide witness. They declined to do so today. Nobody. Now, were going to call on congresswoman tlaib for five minutes. Thank you so much, chairman. I do sincerely appreciate you using this committee to kind of elevate the voices of people like the pastor here and others that have been impacted. I think its really hard for me to sometimes sit here and hear folks, you know, kind of be the the defendant lawyers for the corporations. I mean, how much money, millions and billions of dollars, did Johnson Johnson make in poisoning people . I mean, literally, why arent we asking that question . Because i you cant get away from the facts. Fda found asbestos in baby powder. Now, remember, its baby powder. Its not even just regular powder. Its baby powder. Not only that, they later on, furthermore, reports state that the asbestos was detected in one of the texts Johnson Johnson itself conducted using sample from the same bottle as the okay. Fact. Okay . Fda is coming to us saying this. Are we going to say is fda getting paid . No. These are folks coming there and trying to protect the public. That is our job. That is our job to protect the public. Reports show that Johnson Johnson contracted with rg lee labs rj lee reportedly deviated from its standard testing procedures in order to deliver rushed results at the request of the company. Check this out. In rj lee scientist stated that Johns Johnson and johnson wanted, quote, very rapid turnaround for obvious reasons. Then the lab found asbestos in its sample but later retracted its results and claimed that initial false detection was due to environmental contaminants in one