The FDA and EPA Consider The Economic Impact of Banning Products As Well As The Health Effects

The FDA's lax supervision allowed asbestos in Johnson's Baby Powder to go undetected for half a century, maximizing profits for Johnson & Johnson

Monday, August 19, 2019 - When discussing Johnson's Baby Powder one must remember that the iconic baby powder brand is technically a cosmetic like women's makeup or eyeliner. The cosmetics industry is self-policing and is not subject to scrutiny from the FDA as are foods products. The agency does little more than issue an occasional safety alert to keep cosmetic companies on their toes and to make it appear to the public that they are doing their job. To be clear, the FDA describes their authority over the cosmetics industry as follows: "Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), cosmetic products and ingredients, (except for) color additives, do not have to undergo FDA review or approval before they go on the market. Cosmetics must be properly labeled, and they must be safe for use by consumers under labeled or customary conditions of use. The law does not require cosmetic companies to share safety information with FDA." It is in this regard that Johnson & Johnson has gotten away with lax talc asbestos testing methods when the FDA recommended as early as the 1950's, but failed to enforce, more stringent asbestos testing methods be employed by JNJ. As a result, the entire cosmetics industry may have been getting away with selling products that contain asbestos-laced talc for decades. When the FDA did, in June of 2019, test several brands of cosmetics, the products tested positive for asbestos and were voluntarily pulled from store shelves at Claire's stores where they were being sold. The agency has promised to do more asbestos tests on cosmetics in the future. Talcum powder cancer lawsuits represented by top national attorneys are helping families and individuals nationwide and offer a free consultation.

The FDA's lack of effective oversight on cosmetics has spilled over to other products as well as to the EPA. The current administration in Washington has exerted an influence on the decision making of two of America's most high-profile consumer health watchdog agencies regarding decisions it has made in regards to certain carcinogenic pesticides and HIV drugs with potentially deadly side effects. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has shown a pro-business slant and recently sided with Monsanto when the agency refused to require Roundup herbicide to carry a cancer warning label even though three consecutive juries found that Roundup herbicide did cause cancer. The EPA is conscious of the impact banning glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup would have on produce prices and the adverse effect costly food prices would have on the economy. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also quickly approved Descovy, a replacement for the leading HIV prevention drug Truvada, even though Truvada has been known to cause bone density loss and kidney failure when used daily for long periods. There seemed to be pressure to fast-track the FDA approval of Descovy as part of the 2 million bottles per year free government giveaway program designed to wipe out HIV within a decade. Gilead Sciences, maker of Truvada and Descovy, was accused of entering into a quid-pro-quo deal with the Trump administration to protect and effectively transfer Truvada's patent to Descovy in exchange for the free drugs.

Information provided by TalcumPowderCancerLawsuit.com, a website devoted to providing news about talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuits, as well as medical research and findings.