Asbestos in commercial cosmetic talcum powder as a cause of mesothelioma in women

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos in commercial cosmetic talcum powder as a cause of mesothelioma in women, by R. Lee, D. Van Orden (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2015).

The study

• Authors: R. Lee, D. Van Orden
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2015;21(4):337-41
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Cited by: 10 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Summary of the article

This letter to the editor responded to a 2014 paper by Gordon, Fitzgerald and Millette, published in the same journal, which attributed mesothelioma in women to asbestos in cosmetic talcum powder. The letter's authors worked for RJ Lee Group (Lab D), which was retained by the defendant in ongoing litigation. Gordon et al. had been retained by the plaintiffs. The letter argued that the paper misidentified trace accessory minerals as asbestos. It said the paper relied on visual recognition of electron diffraction (SAED) patterns without the quantitative zone axis analysis that the cited methods require, and disregarded polarized light microscopy findings of no asbestos. It also said the paper did not compare results between laboratories, which varied from nondetect to 202 million fibers per gram on one sample. According to the letter, most counted particles had aspect ratios below 20:1. When the letter's authors re-examined the other laboratories' grids, particles reported as anthophyllite proved to be talc, talc/anthophyllite intergrowths or clays. Of eight relocated particles from the review of Lab D grids, only one, a nonasbestiform tremolite, was correctly identified. The letter stated that asbestos bodies in the lung tissue had aspect ratios over 100:1, unlike the talc particles, and that the paper ignored uncoated amosite fibers in the lung. It also said cited references were misrepresented. The authors concluded that the paper should be withdrawn. Both authors declared participation in talc litigation.

PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

In plain English

This is a letter to the editor rather than a full research paper. Its title repeats that of the 2014 paper it criticizes, by Gordon and colleagues, which claimed that exposure to asbestos-contaminated cosmetic talc caused the mesotheliomas at issue. The letter's authors work at RJ Lee Group, called "Lab D," which was retained by the defendant in litigation over this subject. The paper's authors were retained by plaintiffs. Both letter authors disclosed taking part in talc litigation. The letter argued that the paper's laboratories misidentified trace minerals in the talc as asbestos, chiefly anthophyllite and to a lesser extent tremolite. It also said their results varied widely: one bulk sample that Lab C analyzed three times ranged from nondetect to 202 million fibers per gram. After re-examining the paper's microscope grids, the letter's authors stated that, with minor exception, particles identified as anthophyllite proved to be talc, talc/anthophyllite intergrowths, or amorphous clays. They also said the paper ignored amosite that Lab D found in the diseased lung tissue. They concluded that the editors should require the paper to be withdrawn.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Letter to the editor criticizing a published 2014 paper (Gordon et al.). The letter authors also report their own re-examination of that paper's TEM grids. It is not a study of patients.
• Who was studied: No new study population. The letter discusses talc samples and lung tissue analyzed for ongoing litigation. The letter's authors (RJ Lee Group, Lab D) were retained by the defendant; the authors of the criticized paper were retained by plaintiffs.
• Exposure: Cosmetic talcum powder that the criticized paper claimed was contaminated with asbestos and caused mesothelioma
• Main results:
  • The letter framed the dispute as whether the paper established the presence of anthophyllite asbestos and, to a lesser extent, tremolite asbestos in the talc.
  • The letter's authors argued that the paper's authors misidentified trace levels of accessory minerals in the talcum powder as asbestos.
  • The letter reported that one bulk sample analyzed three times by Lab C gave results from nondetect to 202 million fibers per gram. On the same sample, Lab A found a single fiber, which it extrapolated to 11 400 fibers per gram.
  • On re-examining TEM grids from Labs B and C, the letter's authors stated that, with minor exception, the particles identified as anthophyllite proved on quantitative analysis to be talc, talc/anthophyllite intergrowths, or amorphous clays.
  • The paper's reviewer had re-evaluated Lab D grids. Of eight particles from outside the Lab D analyzed areas that the letter's authors relocated and analyzed, they reported that only one, a nonasbestiform tremolite particle, was correctly identified by that reviewer.
  • The letter stated that the criticized paper ignored amosite found by Lab D in TEM analysis of the diseased lung tissue.
  • The letter stated that the two asbestos bodies shown in the lung tissue differed in shape from the talc particles illustrated in the paper.
• The authors' conclusion: The letter's authors concluded that neither the data nor the references supported the paper's arguments, and that the editors should require the paper to be withdrawn.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Mesothelioma, Talc and vermiculite.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Mesothelioma, Defendant, Plaintiff, Accessory Mineral, Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED), Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM), Fibers Per Gram, Aspect Ratio (Length-to-diameter ratio).

Related studies

• Response to RE: Gordon R, Fitzgerald S, and Millette J. Asbestos in commercial cosmetic talcum powder as a cause of mesothelioma in women. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2014;20(4):318-332 — R.E. Gordon (2015)
• Letter concerning: Burns AM, Barlow CA, Banducci AM, Unice KM, Sahmel J. Potential Airborne Asbestos Exposure and Risk Associated with the Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder Products — M.M. Finkelstein (2019)
• Commentary on "Assessment of Health Risk From Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder" — D. Egilman, J. Steffen (2018)
• Fibrous and mineral content of cosmetic talcum products — L.J. Cralley, M.M. Key, et al. (1968)
• Evaluation of the presence of asbestos in cosmetic talcum products — J.S. Pierce, A.S. Riordan, et al. (2017)
• Serous Ovarian Cancer Caused by Exposure to Asbestos and Fibrous Talc in Cosmetic Talc Powders-A Case Series — J.E. Steffen, T. Tran, et al. (2020)

Browse more research in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, or return to medical research.