Commentary on "Assessment of Health Risk From Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder"

Our plain-English summary of Commentary on "Assessment of Health Risk From Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder", by D. Egilman, J. Steffen (New Solutions, 2018).

The study

• Authors: D. Egilman, J. Steffen
• Journal: New Solutions
• Published: 2018;28(3):400-409
• Type of article: Comment
• Cited by: 3 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

In response to recent litigation, Colgate Palmolive hired Exponent to determine if various samples of their cosmetic talc products contained asbestos. Anderson et al., Exponent employees, claim to report the findings of these analyses in their paper "Assessment of Health Risk from Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder." The microscopist who reviewed the samples found four anthophyllite fibers. One of the authors of Anderson et al., Patrick Sheehan, who is not a microscopist, directed the reviewing microscopist to alter the report and add the qualification that "…this classification was inconclusive due to the small number counted." Deviations from the referenced analytical methods, however, would account for the small number of fibers counted relative to the limit of detection. Anderson et al., reported that "no asbestos fibers were detected in any of the eighteen samples analyzed" based on the report's altered conclusions.

In plain English

This is a commentary, not a new study. The authors criticized a 2017 paper by Anderson et al., written by employees of Exponent. Colgate Palmolive hired Exponent during mesothelioma lawsuits to test its cosmetic talc products for asbestos. Citing e-mails and deposition testimony released in litigation, the authors wrote that the testing laboratory's initial report found four anthophyllite asbestos fibers in three of eighteen talc samples. Anderson et al. reported that no asbestos fibers were detected. The authors stated that Exponent author Patrick Sheehan, who is not a microscopist, directed the microscopist, Mark Floyd, to relabel the fibers as "transition" fibers and to add that the classification was inconclusive because few fibers were counted. According to the authors, Floyd testified that by the method used the fibers were asbestos. The authors also argued that air sample volumes of 121 to 211 L fell below the 400 L that the cited NIOSH methods require to reach their limit of detection, resulting in underestimated exposure. The authors concluded that the reclassification was imposed after the fact. Dr. Egilman disclosed being retained in asbestos and talc litigation on behalf of both injured people and manufacturers.

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: Commentary (originally submitted as a letter to the editor) criticizing a published risk assessment, based on litigation documents and deposition testimony
• Who was studied: No human population. The commentary concerns the analysis by Anderson et al. (Risk Analysis 2017) of eighteen samples of Colgate Palmolive cosmetic talc products, tested by Forensic Analytical Laboratories for Exponent
• Exposure: Anthophyllite asbestos in cosmetic talc, measured in airborne samples collected during exposure simulations and analyzed by NIOSH methods 7400 and 7402
• Main results:
  • The authors wrote that the laboratory's initial report found four anthophyllite asbestos fibers in three of eighteen samples, while Anderson et al. reported that no asbestos fibers were detected in any of the 18 samples
  • According to the authors, an e-mail from Patrick Sheehan directed the microscopist to replace "anthophyllite" with "transition" in the report header, and the microscopist complied
  • The authors stated that a footnote in the revised report, saying the classification was inconclusive due to the small number counted, adopted Sheehan's rationale
  • According to the authors, the microscopist testified that clients suggested language changes less than 1 percent of the time, and that by the method used the fibers found were asbestos
  • The authors quoted a Sheehan e-mail stating that the report would be used in future litigation cases
  • The authors stated that Anderson et al. used 48-minute sampling with air volumes of 121 to 211 L, below the 400 L minimum that the NIOSH methods require to reach the limit of detection, and argued that this resulted in exposure underestimation
  • The authors stated that Anderson et al. did not report that the same microscopist had found anthophyllite asbestos in Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder in 2004
  • The authors argued that Anderson et al. considered only asbestos content and ignored other talc-related risks among cosmetic users, such as fatal aspiration and talcosis
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that Anderson et al.'s explanation for reclassifying the anthophyllite fibers was imposed after the fact, directed by Sheehan rather than the microscopist. They also concluded that the small sampling volume was the main reason Anderson et al. could not detect a significant number of asbestos fibers

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Cosmetic Talc, Anthophyllite.

Related studies

• 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)
• 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)
• Asbestos in commercial cosmetic talcum powder as a cause of mesothelioma in women — R. Lee, D. Van Orden (2015)
• Potential Airborne Asbestos Exposure and Risk Associated with the Historical Use of Cosmetic Talcum Powder Products — A.M. Burns, C.A. Barlow, et al. (2019)
• 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)

Browse more research in New Solutions, or return to medical research.