WorldPRWire.

Net
Go to...

14 Jun 2016

Home Healthcare Perineal Use of Talc Powder is Considered Cosmetic?

medrdeCionssi PowrdeclTaofUeslaneirPe
Posted in Healthcare By admin On June 14, 2016
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies talc as a cosmetic. Cosmetics are regulated less stringently by the FDA.
North Little Rock, AR, June 14, 2016 Deane Berg, Jacqueline Fox, and
Gloria Ristesund have become martyrs in the fight against Johnson &
Johnsons talcum powder. Berg and Ristesund are survivors of ovarian
cancer, and the cases they filed against the company have led juries in South
Dakota and Missouri to conclude that Johnson & Johnson was negligent in
refusing to provide warning of talcs hidden dangers. Fox, who passed away in
2015, showed the jury that Johnson & Johnson also engaged in advertising
campaigns specifically designed to manipulate minorities. In the wake of those
decisions, the million dollar question, taken up by thousands of women all over
the world has been, How could they do this to us?
According to Eileen Kroll, an attorney for talcs ovarian cancer victims, the
answer is simple and horrifying. Because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies talc as a cosmetic, she says that,
its truly a corporate decision of what to do with this product. The corporate decision has been exactly what one would expect. Just
as cigarette companies in the mid-twentieth century fought studies implicating cigarettes as carcinogens, Johnson & Johnson has
also fought the more than twenty unfavorable studies conducted since 1982 which indicate that frequent, extended perineal talc
use can increase the risk of ovarian cancer by as much as 33%.
Selective science has been Johnson & Johnsons modus operandi for more than two decades. Its latest proponent is the Cosmetic
Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel, which concluded in 2015 that talc is safe in the present practices of use and concentration
described in this safety assessment. The study, which Johnson & Johnson claims was conducted independently, provides the
company with ground to stand upon as it prepares for the next round of litigation. Johnson & Johnson is able to maintain the illusion
of reasonable doubt in the face of mounting evidence for one very important reasonthe archaic conditions stipulated by the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Passed by Congress in 1938, the Act gave cosmetic manufacturers wide latitude to regulate themselves as they saw fit. Cosmetics
are not to be unadulterated or misbranded, but the FDA has very little authority to ensure consumer safety. It does not have the
ability to test and approve products before they are introduced to the market, manufacturers are not required to list their
ingredients, and companies are under no obligation to report adverse events to the federal government when cosmetic use goes
awry. The FDA is careful to note on its website that there is a difference between products which are regulated by the FDA and
products which are approved by the agency. Almost eighty years after the Act, the FDAs power to regulate is still limited to
ensuring that products are safe for consumers when used according to directions on the label, or in the customary or expected
way, and they must be properly labeled. That limitation renders the government especially impotent when the questionable product
does not manifest its more insidious side effects until years and years of regular use results in unforeseeably deadly
consequences.
In recent years there have been signs of progress, but there have also been reminders of how well-equipped companies like
Johnson & Johnson are to combat the specter of heightened government regulation. Congresswoman Jan Schakowski introduced
the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, but it died on the House floor. In the summer of 2013, the FDA and cosmetic manufacturers
agreed to a tentative outline of regulative legislation, but the talks crumpled acrimoniously. The FDA accused the industry
representatives of having a change of heart and said that its cavalier behavior would put Americans at greater risk from cosmeticsrelated illness and injury than they are today. Johnson & Johnson, through its lobbying vehicle the Talc Interested Party Task
Force, delayed government intervention for more than twenty years by producing company-friendly studies and generating
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

confusion about its prized product.

The talc verdicts represent much more than Johnson & Johnsons marketing and distribution habits. They represent an entire
cosmetic industry hiding behind a seventy-eight year old law and a hobbled and handcuffed federal agency to the detriment of an
unsuspecting public.
Contact:
Law Offices of Lisa Douglas
Lisa Douglas
2300 Main
North Little Rock, AR 72114
(501) 798-0004
Toll Free 888 THE LAWYER
lisa@lisagdouglas.com
http://www.lisagdouglas.com

About Author
Admin

Related Posts

Using CRISPR/Cas9 to Edit the Gene of the Primary Cell

What Johnson and Johnson Doesnt Want You to Know About Talc Cancer

Johnson & Johnson Talc Ovarian Cancer Legal Woes Go Abroad

Search this site...

Search

Recent Posts
Best-Selling Author Releases New BADASS
Book
Perineal Use of Talc Powder is Considered
Cosmetic?
GREEN CREATIVE Launches Warm Dim
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Series LED Lamps

Fry Offers for Sale Large Doublewide
Manufactured Home in New Haven, Indiana,
Park for $5,000
Data Recovery London Offers Quick and
Reliable Data Recovery Service in London

Categories
Arts and Entertaintment
Business
Construction
Education
Food & Beverage
Healthcare
Lifestyle
Science
Technology

Archives
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015

WorldPRWire.Net Copyright 2016.

Back to Top

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com