David Rosner, Gerald Markowitz, and Merlin Chowkwanyun are with the Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY. Gerald Markowitz is also with the John Jay College and Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY.
Am J Public Health. 2019 Jul;109(7):969-974. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305085. Epub 2019 May 16.
The recent lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson have raised the issue of what and when talcum powder manufacturers knew about the presence of asbestos in their products and what they did or did not do to protect the public. Low-level exposure to asbestos in talc is said to result in either mesothelioma or ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson has claimed that there was "no detectable asbestos" in their products and that any possible incidental presence was too small to act as a carcinogen. But what exactly does "nondetected" mean? Here, we examine the historical development of the argument that asbestos in talcum powder was "nondetected." We use a unique set of historical documents from the early 1970s, when low-level pollution of talc with asbestos consumed the cosmetics industry. We trace the debate over the Food and Drug Administration's efforts to guarantee that talc was up to 99.99% free of chrysotile and 99.9% free of amphibole asbestos. Cosmetic talc powder manufacturers, through their trade association, pressed for a less stringent methodology and adopted the term "nondetected" rather than "asbestos-free" as a term of art.
最近针对强生公司的几起诉讼案提出了这样一个问题,即滑石粉制造商何时以及在何种程度上了解其产品中含有石棉,以及他们为保护公众安全做了什么或没有做什么。有低水平的石棉暴露在滑石粉中,据说是导致间皮瘤或卵巢癌的原因。强生公司声称他们的产品“没有检测到石棉”,任何可能的偶然存在的石棉含量都太小,不会成为致癌物质。但是“未检出”到底是什么意思呢?在这里,我们考察了关于滑石粉中的石棉是“未检出”的论点的历史发展。我们使用了一组独特的历史文件,这些文件来自 20 世纪 70 年代早期,当时滑石粉中低水平的石棉污染消耗了化妆品行业。我们追溯了关于食品和药物管理局努力保证滑石粉中不含温石棉的争论,以及保证滑石粉中不含 99.9%的角闪石石棉的争论。化妆品用滑石粉制造商通过其贸易协会,强烈要求采用一种不那么严格的方法,并采用“未检出”一词而不是“无石棉”作为一个专业术语。