Search

The talc industry and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have asserted that talc has been asbestos-free since 1976 when the industry created a voluntary specification for the asbestos content of cosmetic talc. However, recent evidence reveals that cosmetic talc is not and never was asbestos-free. This narrative review examines the talc industry's role in delaying and ultimately blocking federal regulation of cosmetic talc from the 1970s to today. We review primary source material, including corporate documents released in recent litigation and FDA documents released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. Our results indicate that the talc industry exerted considerable influence over three key areas: regulatory proceedings at the FDA; testing methods and the manipulation of test results (including undisclosed results); and press coverage and the medical literature. The talc companies' actions and FDA indifference have had a lasting effect on consumer health, including the regulation of talc by other government agencies.

Product warnings are theoretically designed to reduce injuries associated with occupational, environmental, or consumer product exposures. Unfortunately, in an effort to protect sales, some companies have produced media and information to falsely reassure their customers about the risks associated with their products. These tactics have been termed "anti-warnings." We reviewed corporate documents uncovered in litigation alongside other historical publications to ascertain the types of anti-warnings used by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) regarding their asbestos products. Our review finds that UCC went to great lengths to confuse their customers and make their particular asbestos product-which contained short-fiber, chrysotile asbestos-look safe. We discuss three primary communications methods UCC used: industry-produced publications, sales force direct communication with customers, and public speeches. These examples provide further insight into how corporations encourage uncertainty about the risks associated with their products. Understanding anti-warning methods is critical for the implementation of future policies that protect consumer, worker, and environmental health.

State of the art is a legal concept that describes what was known as knowable by experts including manufacturer's state of knowledge about the potential hazards of their product(s) at a point in time. In 2004, Paustenbach et al. published a state-of-the-art review that describes the development of knowledge about asbestos hazards to brake mechanics performing asbestos brake installation and maintenance. Paustenbach et al.'s review, however, omits important pieces of corporate knowledge, dismisses several historical scientific conclusions and ignores the way experts have applied the results of scientific research to protect workers and consumers handling asbestos brakes. By taking their state-of-the-art review out of the legal liability context, Paustenbach et al. create a misleading version of events that fails to properly address the question of what asbestos brake manufacturers knew or should have known about the potential hazards of their brakes to mechanics over time. Without proper presentation of this information, judges and juries cannot adequately assess whether these companies had a duty to warn or take other action to prevent injury to those exposed to their asbestos brakes.