INDIA- Chrysotile asbestos: Violation of ethics by NIOH and NHRC has caused public health hazard
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Gopal Krishna
Dec 16, 2018, 6:37:45 AM12/16/18
to banasbestosindia
1.INDIA- Chrysotile asbestos: Violation of ethics by NIOH and NHRC has
caused public health hazard
Gopal Krishna
Experiences from Gujarat-based National Institute of Occupational
Health (NIOH) and New Delhi-based National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) bring forth violation of ethics by these two institutions in
the matter of research on white chrysotile asbestos by the former and
the use of the outcome of this research by the latter. Ignoring
scientific and medical evidence of public health hazard and its own
order about the harmful effect of asbestos, NHRC refrained from
prohibiting use of carcinogenic mineral fibers of white chrysotile
asbestos using an irrelevant and an admittedly questionable study by
NIOH. NHRC committed a grave error by merely reproducing the
submission of one Assistant Industrial Advisor, Ministry of Chemicals
& Fertilizers, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals as part of
its “Directions” (NHRC, 2016).
In doing so, NHRC ignored its own order (NHRC, 1998). In this case
NHRC’s direction reads: “Replace the asbestos sheets roofing with
roofing made up of some other material that would not be harmful to
inmates.” It is evident from it that the NHRC considered asbestos
sheets as harmful but it allowed itself to be misled by NIOH’s study.
White chrysotile asbestos fibers used for making asbestos based
products like asbestos cement roofs cause preventable but incurable
diseases and deaths. Asbestos is a carcinogenic mineral fiber banned
in some 60 countries.
Ignoring glaring and indisputable scientific, medical and judicial
findings, Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu headed NHRC has issued the following
direction:
“Pursuant to the directions of the Commission, Dr. Rohit Misra,
Assistant Industrial Advisor, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers,
Deptt. of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Govt. of India vide letter
dated 4th July, 2016 has informed the Commission that in order to take
an appropriate and scientific stand in the International Forum on the
issue related to health hazards posed by Chrysotile variety of
Asbestos, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals had entrusted
National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) to carry out a study
on Health Hazards/Environmental Hazards resulting from the use of
Chrysotile variety of Asbestos in the country. Later, with the
approval of MoS (Ind. Charge) Chemicals & Fertilizers, it was decided
to set up an Inter-Ministerial Committee for considering the issue of
continuance or otherwise of the use of Chrysotile variety of asbestos
in India, taking into account of NIOH report and other related issues.
On 27.8.2014, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Minister
(Chemicals & Fertilizer) to consider the NIOH report. It was decided
in the meeting that the NIOH report does not indicate any significant
health/environment hazards resulting from the use of Chrysotile
asbestos under proper conditions, coupled with the fact that asbestos
products are quite cost effective for use by the masses, India may not
support the inclusion of Chrysotile in Annexure-III at the COP Meeting
in 2015. In the light of the above report, no further action by the
Commission is called for. The case is closed.”
The Commission concluded on August 8, 2016.
It is quite bizarre that views of Secretary, Medical Education &
Research & Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandigarh Administration
and Joint Secretary, Uttarakhand Government have been disregarded and
NHRC allowed itself to be persuaded by views of Assistant Industrial
Advisor, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers. It is the same ministry
which is dealing with public health disaster caused due to industrial
disaster of Bhopal. This ministry’s callousness towards public health
concerns due to hazardous chemicals and pesticides is well known. It
does not even have the inventory all the chemicals used in the country
and a register of its ill effects on human health and environment.
It is indeed quite strange that NHRC ignored Union Ministry of
Labour’s concept paper that declares, “The Government of India is
considering the ban on use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect
the workers and the general population against primary and secondary
exposure to Chrysotile form of Asbestos. The Concept paper of the
Central Government notes, “Asbestosis is yet another occupational
disease of the Lungs which is on an increase under similar
circumstances warranting concerted efforts of all stake holders to
evolve strategies to curb this menace” (MOLE, 2011).
As to NIOH study, while one disagrees with the findings of the
conflict of interest ridden study conducted by the National Institute
of Occupational Health, (NIOH), it is evident that even this study
does not state that chrysotile asbestos is not a hazardous chemical.
Had NIOH study concluded that Chrysotile Asbestos is not a hazardous
chemical it may have become relevant. But even then it would have been
legally unsustainable because under Indian laws chrysotile asbestos is
a hazardous chemical.
NHRC ignored the fact that Union Minister of State for Environment and
Forests had informed the Rajya Sabha in a written reply that the study
of the health status of the workers and the residents in the vicinity
of the asbestos industry by NIOH, Ahmedabad was co-sponsored by the
Asbestos Cement Products Manufactures Association (ACPMA). Out of a
total of Rs. 59.66 lacs allocated for the study by Ministry of
Chemicals and Fertilizers, the Asbestos Cement Products Manufactures
Association has contributed Rs. 16 lacs (PIB, 2008).
NHRC ignored that fact that every Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
Report of every asbestos based factory itself admits that asbestos is
a hazardous substance. The EIA report is prepared under EIA
Notification notified under Environment Protection Act, 1986. A reply
sent to the author by the Ministry of Environment & Forests shared a 7
page note of Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC)’ dated
June 18, 2013 on the issue of Government of Indias position on
hazardous substance chrysotile asbestos at the Sixth Conference of
Parties of (CoP-6) of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed
Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
International Trade held during April 28-May 10, 2013 in Switzerland.
As to NIOH’s role, a perusal of this 7 page long note of the
Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC), Union Ministry of
Chemicals and Fertilizers on the subject of Chrysotile Asbestos titled
“Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals View on the use of
Chrysotile Asbestos” in the country along with MoEF ‘s letter reveals
that the contention of MoEF based DCPC’s note stating that “On the
basis of the said note, the listing of Chrysotile Asbestos under Annex
-A of Rotterdam Convention at CoP-6 during April 28th -May 10th 2013
at Geneva could not be supported” was/is misplaced. The note of the
“line department”, i.e. Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals
(DCPC), Union Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers on the subject
chrysotile asbestos illustrates that it has failed to understand the
purpose of the Rotterdam Convention and ignorance about the objective
of the Convention.
NHRC ignored the objective of Article 1 of the Rotterdam Convention
which reads: “The objective of this Convention is to promote shared
responsibility and cooperative efforts among Parties in the
international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to protect
human health and the environment from potential harm and to contribute
to their environmentally sound use, by facilitating information
exchange about their characteristics, by providing for a national
decision-making process on their import and export and by
disseminating these decisions to Parties.”
NHRC has been kept in dark about the concluding sentence of the
DCPC’s note which reads: “In view of the above, India may take a stand
in the next CoP meeting of Rotterdam Convention for not inclusion of
chrysotile asbestos in Annexure-III of Convention.” NHRC ignored the
fact that the note is irrelevant from the point of view of the
objective of the Convention for which it was prepared. It ignored that
the NIOH study which has been mentioned was admittedly tainted because
of proven conflict of interest and thus its inference was
questionable. This was admitted in the Parliament by the Labour
Minister and the Environment Minister. The Press Information Bureau
(PIB) release with regard to the same is available on its website
which reveals that the conclusion of the DCPC’s note titled
“Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals’ View on the use of
Chrysotile Asbestos in the country” is based on manifestly flawed
reasoning.
NHRC ignored the fact that at the first meeting, the Chemical Review
Committee (CRC) under the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed
Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides
in International Trade, the committee agreed to recommend to the
Conference of the Parties that Chrysotile Asbestos should be listed in
Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. The CRC is a group of
government designated experts established in line with Article 18 of
the Convention that evaluates candidate chemicals for possible
inclusion in the Convention. Chrysotile (serpentine forms of asbestos)
is included in the PIC procedure as an industrial chemical.
NHRC has failed to appreciate that what is poisonous and hazardous
within India cannot be deemed non-poisonous and non-hazardous under
the unscientific influence of DCPC and Asbestos Cement Products
Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) at the conference of Parties of
Rotterdam Convention. DCPC’s untenable position is ridiculous.
NHRC ignored the fact that the Union Ministry of Finance has
announcement that asbestos related diseases will be covered under
Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (National Health Insurance Scheme) is
an acknowledgement of the fact that asbestos is a health hazard
although this is hardly sufficient in the absence of environmental and
occupational infrastructure.
NHRC failed to get the report of the 13 member- Advisory Committee of
Union Ministry of Labour which has been set up to implement Supreme
Court’s order. This Advisory Committee is supposed to incorporate the
ILO resolution of 2006 in the matter of asbestos as per Supreme
Court’s order of 1995 and 2011 under the Chairmanship of Joint
Secretary, Union Ministry of Labour but as of November 20, 2016, the
Advisory Committee has not submitted its report despite the fact that
more than 4 years have passed since it was entrusted the task on
January 23, 2012. The ministry is supposed to incorporate specific
directions of the Court with regard to fresh ILO Resolution of June
14, 2006 introducing a ban on all mining, manufacture, recycling and
use of all forms of asbestos besides WHO’s resolution of 2005 seeking
elimination of future use of asbestos.
NHRC ignored the approval and the recommendations of the Chemical
Review Committee under Rotterdam Convention that has endorsed listing
of chrysotile asbestos in the PIC list of hazardous substances.
NHRC ignored the fact that Government of India’s Environmental Impact
Assessment, Guidance Manual for Asbestos Based Industries. The Manual
refers to WHO’s “Environmental Health Criteria 203; Chrysotile
Asbestos (http://www.who.int/en/)” but fails to incorporate the
criteria. Although requirements underlined in the Manual has neither
been complied with in the past nor are they being adhered to at the
present and it is quite unlikely that it will be done in future, NHRC
has failed to apply it mind to such grave situation.
NHRC ignored that the official Inventory of Hazardous Chemicals Import
in India lists “Asbestos” at serial no. 26 as one of the 180 hazardous
chemicals in international trade which is imported in India. This
inventory has been prepared by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB),
under Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India.”
NHRC ignored that Schedule I of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling
and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 provides the List of Processes Generating
Hazardous Wastes. The list has 36 processes generating hazardous
wastes. It may be noted that Production of Asbestos or Asbestos
containing materials which generates Asbestos-containing residues,
Discarded Asbestos, Dust/particulates from exhaust gas treatment is at
the serial no. 15 in the list.
NHRC ignored the Schedule VI of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling
and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 which provides List of Hazardous Wastes
Prohibited for Import and Export. The list had 30 such hazardous
wastes which are also covered under UN’s Basel Convention on
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The
list mentions Waste Asbestos (Dust and Fibers) at serial no. 16 with
its Basel No. A2050.
NHRC ignored that the Factories Act, 1948, which provides the list of
29 industries involving hazardous processes is given under Section 2
(cb), Schedule First, asbestos is mentioned at serial no. 24. The Act
defines “hazardous process” as “any process or activity in relation to
an industry specified in the First Schedule where, unless special care
is taken, raw materials used therein or the intermediate or finished
products, bye-products, wastes or effluents thereof would–(i) cause
material impairment to the health of the persons engaged in or
connected therewith, or (ii) result in the pollution of the general
environment” . This leaves no doubt that asbestos is a hazardous
substance.
NHRC ignored the findings of Supreme Court constituted High Powered
Committee (HPC) headed by Prof. MGK. Menon (by order dated October 13,
1997) for examination of all matters relating to hazardous wastes. The
HPC had dealt with issues of asbestos based industries and their
wastes.
NHRC ignored the findings of Supreme Court constituted Technical
Experts Committee on Hazardous Wastes relating to Ship-breaking in
2006-7 that had asked National Institute of Occupational Health,
(NIOH) to undertake an epidemiological study was planned to find out
the magnitude of asbestos related health problems and other disorders
among ship breaking workers. The study observed that 15 (16 %) of 94
workers occupationally exposed to asbestos showed linear shadows on
chest X-rays, and 26 workers (39%) showed restrictive impairment. But
despite Supreme Court’s order dated January 27, 1995 fixing Rs 1 lakh
for victims of asbestos related diseases these workers have not been
compensated.
NHRC ignored the report of the Working Group of a Planning Commission
on Occupational Safety and Health at the workplace which noted that
“The workers are also exposed to a host of hazardous substances, which
have a potential to cause serious occupational diseases such as
asbestosis…” It has recorded that various studies conducted by the
Central Labour Institute have revealed substantial prevalence of
occupational health disorders amongst the workers such as Asbestosis.
The prevalence rate for Asbestosis was reported to be 7.25%” (Planning
Commission, 2001).
In its report dated 1 August, 2011, NHRC provided details of its
interventions including Banning use of white asbestos wherein it
claimed “The Commission took cognizance of a complaint that about
fifty thousand people die every year in the country from
asbestos-related cancer. The complainant requested the Commission’s
intervention to ban chrysotile asbestos (white asbestos), which is
used on walls and roofs claiming that it caused various incurable
diseases, and that the Government illogically had technically banned
the mining of asbestos but allowed its import from countries which do
not let it be used domestically. The Commission issued notices to the
Secretaries of the Union Ministries of Chemical & Fertilizers,
Environment & Forest, Health & Family Welfare, Industry & Commerce,
and Labour and to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union
Territories, calling for reports on the issues raised in the
complaint” (NHRC, 2011).
NHRC failed to appreciate that Russia, the world’s biggest asbestos
producer remains India’s biggest supplier of raw asbestos given the
fact that India has banned asbestos mining because of its deleterious
impact on health. India remains the world’s biggest asbestos importer.
India is consuming 15 % of the total world asbestos production, as per
US Geological Survey estimates.
NHRC ignored its own statement dated June 5, 2012, wherein it wrote,
“The Commission had asked them (the central and state authorities) to
share with it the information on the action taken by them with regard
to the Supreme Court judgment dated the January 21, 2011 in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2004 on exposure to asbestos.” It further
wrote, “The Commission, while seeking their responses, had
particularly drawn their attention the Supreme Court directions with
regard to Para 16 of the Writ Petition, which are as follows: a)
Ministry of Labour in the Union of India and Department of Industries
and Labour in all the State Government shall ensure that the
directions contained in the judgment of this Court in the case of
Consumer Education and Research Centre (supra) are strictly adhered
to; b) In terms of the above judgment of this Court as well as reasons
stated in this judgment, we hereby direct the Union of India and the
States to review safeguards in relation to primary as well as
secondary exposure to asbestos keeping in mind the information
supplied by the respective States in furtherance to the earlier
judgment as well as fresh resolution passed by the ILO”(NHRC, 2012).
NHRC’s final order of August 2016 ignored its own statement.
NHRC ignored the decision of Kerala Human Rights Commission dated
January 31, 2009 with the following recommendations: a) The State
Government will replace asbestos roofs of all school buildings under
its control with country tiles in a phased manner. b) The Government
will take steps to see that the schools run under the private
management also replace the asbestos roofs with country tiles by
fixing a time frame. c) The Government should see that in future no
new school is allowed to commence its functions with asbestos roofs.
It is noteworthy that “Asbestos poisoning” was highlighted in a
meeting of the Core Group of NGOs that discussed Right to Environment
which was held in the Commission on September 12, 2007, under the
chairmanship of Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, Member NHRC. The order of NHRC
in August 2016 ignored these deliberations.
NHRC ignored the Supreme Court’s order dated January 27, 1995 and
recommendation of World Health Organisation (WHO)’s outline for the
Development of National Programmes for elimination of asbestos related
diseases’ make a case for stopping all asbestos based products to
prevent the imminent public health crisis as a consequence of which
more than 60 countries have banned all forms of asbestos (Supreme
Court, 1995). This order has been reiterated in 2011 by the Court.
NHRC ignored, Vision Statement on Environment and Human Health (Para
4.3.1) of Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change
(MoEFCC) that reads: “Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the
extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out” (MoEFCC).
NHRC ignored the reply to NHRC dated May 29, 2012, Joint Secretary,
Government of Uttarakhand in Case No.2951/30/0/2011, has submitted to
the NHRC a document Medline Plus Trusted Health Information for You,
U.S. National Library of Medicine and the prescription of National
Institutes of Health (NIH) highlighting the Treatment stating: “There
is no cure. Stopping exposure to asbestos is essential.”
NHRC ignored the submission of Secretary, Medical Education &
Research, Chandigarh Administration which has categorically informed
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that “a. White Asbestos
(Chrysotile Asbestos) is implicated in so many studies with the
following diseases:-Mesothelioma (Cancer of Pleura), Lung Cancer,
Peritoneal Cancer, Asbestosis, And also consider as cause of following
cancers:- Ovarian Cancer, Laryngeal Cancer, Other Cancer b. Diseases
are produced in the person involved in Asbestos Industry.” It states
that “No. of cancer deaths due to asbestos requires further large
scale study from India”. It informed NHRC that “It is definitely
harmful material, causing cancer and other related diseases.” It
quoted from Pulmonary Medicine journal saying, “Asbestos is a set of
six naturally occurring silicate minerals exploited commercially for
their desirable physical properties. However, it has been proved
beyond doubt that Asbestos is hazardous to humans. White asbestos has
been found to have causal relationship with various diseases like
pulmonary asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma leading to deaths
of thousands of people every year.” Considering the risk, its use has
been banned more than 50 countries including Japan, European Union and
Australia and efforts are being made for its prohibition in many
countries.
The reply of Chandigarh Administration concluded saying, “Hence, use
of white asbestos should be completely banned in India also and the
same may be replaced by some safe alternative material.” Chandigarh
Administration has realized the public health consequences of exposure
to fibers of asbestos. In a separate reply to NHRC, Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh has referred to para 16 of
the judgment of Supreme Court dated January 21, 2011 passed in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.260 of 2004 wherein directions of January 27, 1995
in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 is required to be
strictly adhered to. It further states, “In terms of the above
judgement of this Court as well as reasons stated in this judgement,
we hereby direct the Union of India and States to review safeguards in
relation to primary as well as secondary exposure to asbestos keeping
in mind the information supplied by the respective States in
furtherance to the earlier judgement as well as fresh resolution
passed by the ILO. Upon such review, further directions, consistent
with law, shall be issued within a period of six months from the date
of passing of this order.” As to ‘fresh resolution passed by the ILO’,
it is noteworthy that “A Resolution concerning asbestos was adopted by
the International Labour Conference at its 95th Session in 2006.
Noting that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are
classified as human carcinogens by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC), and expressing its concern that workers
continue to face serious risks from asbestos exposure, particularly in
asbestos removal, demolition, building maintenance, ship breaking and
waste handling activities, it calls for: – the elimination of the
future use of asbestos and the identification and proper management of
asbestos currently in place as the most effective means to protect
workers from asbestos exposure and to prevent future asbestos-related
diseases and deaths.” NHRC ignored this resolution as well. It also
ignored the fact that the United Nations Committee of Experts on the
Transportation of Dangerous Goods classifies Chrysotile Asbestos in
Hazard Class and Packing Group.
This backdrop makes it pertinent to note that Justice Dattu began
serving as the chairperson of the NHRC in February 2016. Prior to him
Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Cyriac Joseph headed the
Commission that looked into the issue of banning use of White
Asbestos. It appears that concerned institutions got intimidated by
the influence of asbestos industry through its non-profit NGO, ACPMA.
The “Direction” of NHRC is a setback to public health amidst epidemic
of asbestos related diseases.
Excerpts from a paper presented at 14th World Bioethics Congress, Bangalore
https://counterview.org/2018/12/13/chrysotile-asbestos-violation-of-ethics-by-nioh-and-nhrc-has-caused-public-health-hazard/
2. Asbestos Opens New Legal Front in Battle Over Johnson’s Baby Powder
Johnson & Johnson says its product is safe. But asbestos, a carcinogen
that can exist underground near talc, was a concern inside the company
for decades.
Johnson & Johnson says that its Johnson’s Baby Powder has never
contained asbestos and that claims are based on “junk science.”
By Roni Caryn Rabin and Tiffany Hsu
The memos were concise and direct.
An executive at Johnson & Johnson said the main ingredient in its
best-selling baby powder could potentially be contaminated by
asbestos, the dangerous mineral that can cause cancer. He recommended
to senior staff in 1971 that the company “upgrade” its quality control
of talc.
Two years later, another executive raised a red flag, saying the
company should no longer assume that its talc mines were
asbestos-free. The powder, he said, sometimes contained materials that
“might be classified as asbestos fiber.”
The carcinogen, which often appears underground near talc, has been a
concern inside the company for decades. In hundreds of pages of memos,
executives worried about a potential government ban of talc, the
safety of the product and a public backlash over Johnson’s Baby
Powder, a brand built on a reputation for trustworthiness and health.
Executives proposed new testing procedures or replacing talc outright,
while trying to discredit research suggesting that the powder could be
contaminated with asbestos, according to corporate documents unearthed
by litigation, government records obtained by The New York Times
through the Freedom of Information Act, and interviews with scientists
and lawyers.
In one instance, Johnson & Johnson demanded that the government block
unfavorable findings from being made public. An executive ultimately
won assurances from an official at the Food and Drug Administration
that the findings would be issued only “over my dead body,” a memo
summarizing the meeting said.
Those efforts are now forming the crux of a new legal front in a
long-running battle over Johnson’s Baby Powder, potentially leaving
the company exposed in nearly 12,000 lawsuits across the country
claiming that the product can cause cancer.
This summer, 22 women with ovarian cancer successfully sued the
company, arguing that Johnson & Johnson knew about the connection
between talc and asbestos. A jury in St. Louis awarded them $4.69
billion, one of the largest personal injury verdicts ever.
The company lost two other cases this year, in California and New
Jersey, brought by people with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of
internal organs that is associated with asbestos.
The prospect of asbestos “puts the defense in a much more difficult
position,” said Nathan Schachtman, a lawyer who has defended asbestos
companies. “You get a much higher degree of indignation from juries.”
Shares of Johnson & Johnson dropped 10 percent on Friday on an article
by Reuters about the asbestos concerns related to Johnson’s Baby
Powder.
Johnson & Johnson is appealing the three asbestos-related cases. The
company has won three cases related to mesothelioma, while four others
were declared mistrials.
Dec. 14, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/baby-powder-asbestos-johnson-johnson.html
3. Special Report: J&J knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
Lisa Girion
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Darlene Coker knew she was dying. She just
wanted to know why.
Darlene Coker is shown on a kitchen table full of many personal
pictures of her family life in California, U.S. August 15, 2018.
Picture taken August 15, 2018. REUTERS/Mike Blake
She knew that her cancer, mesothelioma, arose in the delicate membrane
surrounding her lungs and other organs. She knew it was as rare as it
was deadly, a signature of exposure to asbestos. And she knew it
afflicted mostly men who inhaled asbestos dust in mines and industries
such as shipbuilding that used the carcinogen before its risks were
understood.
Coker, 52 years old, had raised two daughters and was running a
massage school in Lumberton, a small town in eastern Texas. How had
she been exposed to asbestos? “She wanted answers,” her daughter Cady
Evans said.
Fighting for every breath and in crippling pain, Coker hired Herschel
Hobson, a personal-injury lawyer. He homed in on a suspect: the
Johnson’s Baby Powder that Coker had used on her infant children and
sprinkled on herself all her life. Hobson knew that talc and asbestos
often occurred together in the earth, and that mined talc could be
contaminated with the carcinogen. Coker sued Johnson & Johnson,
alleging that “poisonous talc” in the company’s beloved product was
her killer.
J&J denied the claim. Baby Powder was asbestos-free, it said. As the
case proceeded, J&J was able to avoid handing over talc test results
and other internal company records Hobson had requested to make the
case against Baby Powder.
Coker had no choice but to drop her lawsuit, Hobson said. “When you
are the plaintiff, you have the burden of proof,” he said. “We didn’t
have it.”
That was in 1999. Two decades later, the material Coker and her lawyer
sought is emerging as J&J has been compelled to share thousands of
pages of company memos, internal reports and other confidential
documents with lawyers for some of the 11,700 plaintiffs now claiming
that the company’s talc caused their cancers — including thousands of
women with ovarian cancer.
A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as
deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the
early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes
tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company
executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted
over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to
regulators or the public.
The documents also depict successful efforts to influence U.S.
regulators’ plans to limit asbestos in cosmetic talc products and
scientific research on the health effects of talc.
A small portion of the documents have been produced at trial and cited
in media reports. Many were shielded from public view by court orders
that allowed J&J to turn over thousands of documents it designated as
confidential. Much of their contents is reported here for the first
time.
Dec 14, 2018
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-cancer-special-report/special-report-jj-knew-for-decades-that-asbestos-lurked-in-its-baby-powder-idUSKBN1OD1RQ
4. US Jury awards $4.7bn damages against Johnson & Johnson in talcum cancer case
A jury in St Louis, Missouri, has ordered Johnson and Johnson to pay
$550m (£415m; €471m) in compensatory damages and $4.14bn in punitive
damages to women who alleged that use of the company’s talcum powder
caused them to develop ovarian cancer.
The lawsuit was brought by 22 women from across the US, six of whom
have since died. More than 9000 former US talcum customers have lodged
suits against the company. Most claim damages for ovarian cancer, but
some allege that using the product led them to develop mesothelioma.
The award is by far the biggest yet against Johnson and Johnson in
litigation relating to talcum powder and the first case in which
plaintiffs alleged that asbestos in talcum powder caused their
disease.
July 2018
https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3135
5. J&J Baby Powder litigation takes new focus with asbestos claims
Tina Bellon
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A $117 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson
and a supplier in favor of a man who said his asbestos-related cancer
was caused by long-term use of J&J’s Baby Powder could open a new
front for thousands of cases claiming the widely-used product caused
cancer, legal experts and plaintiffs lawyers said.
April 2018
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-cancer-lawsuit-analys/jj-baby-powder-litigation-takes-new-focus-with-asbestos-claims-idUSKBN1HN0FR
--
Gopal Krishna
Mb: 9818089660
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)
Web:www.asbestosfreeindia.org
....years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up
my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said
then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and
while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in
prison, I am not free.
-------Eugene Debs, five times Presidential candidate of USA & author of *Walls
and Bars*
"We may admire what he does, but we despise what he is."-referring
to humans who act mechanically on instructions
-------Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1792
caused public health hazard
Gopal Krishna
Experiences from Gujarat-based National Institute of Occupational
Health (NIOH) and New Delhi-based National Human Rights Commission
(NHRC) bring forth violation of ethics by these two institutions in
the matter of research on white chrysotile asbestos by the former and
the use of the outcome of this research by the latter. Ignoring
scientific and medical evidence of public health hazard and its own
order about the harmful effect of asbestos, NHRC refrained from
prohibiting use of carcinogenic mineral fibers of white chrysotile
asbestos using an irrelevant and an admittedly questionable study by
NIOH. NHRC committed a grave error by merely reproducing the
submission of one Assistant Industrial Advisor, Ministry of Chemicals
& Fertilizers, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals as part of
its “Directions” (NHRC, 2016).
In doing so, NHRC ignored its own order (NHRC, 1998). In this case
NHRC’s direction reads: “Replace the asbestos sheets roofing with
roofing made up of some other material that would not be harmful to
inmates.” It is evident from it that the NHRC considered asbestos
sheets as harmful but it allowed itself to be misled by NIOH’s study.
White chrysotile asbestos fibers used for making asbestos based
products like asbestos cement roofs cause preventable but incurable
diseases and deaths. Asbestos is a carcinogenic mineral fiber banned
in some 60 countries.
Ignoring glaring and indisputable scientific, medical and judicial
findings, Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu headed NHRC has issued the following
direction:
“Pursuant to the directions of the Commission, Dr. Rohit Misra,
Assistant Industrial Advisor, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers,
Deptt. of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Govt. of India vide letter
dated 4th July, 2016 has informed the Commission that in order to take
an appropriate and scientific stand in the International Forum on the
issue related to health hazards posed by Chrysotile variety of
Asbestos, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals had entrusted
National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH) to carry out a study
on Health Hazards/Environmental Hazards resulting from the use of
Chrysotile variety of Asbestos in the country. Later, with the
approval of MoS (Ind. Charge) Chemicals & Fertilizers, it was decided
to set up an Inter-Ministerial Committee for considering the issue of
continuance or otherwise of the use of Chrysotile variety of asbestos
in India, taking into account of NIOH report and other related issues.
On 27.8.2014, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Minister
(Chemicals & Fertilizer) to consider the NIOH report. It was decided
in the meeting that the NIOH report does not indicate any significant
health/environment hazards resulting from the use of Chrysotile
asbestos under proper conditions, coupled with the fact that asbestos
products are quite cost effective for use by the masses, India may not
support the inclusion of Chrysotile in Annexure-III at the COP Meeting
in 2015. In the light of the above report, no further action by the
Commission is called for. The case is closed.”
The Commission concluded on August 8, 2016.
It is quite bizarre that views of Secretary, Medical Education &
Research & Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandigarh Administration
and Joint Secretary, Uttarakhand Government have been disregarded and
NHRC allowed itself to be persuaded by views of Assistant Industrial
Advisor, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers. It is the same ministry
which is dealing with public health disaster caused due to industrial
disaster of Bhopal. This ministry’s callousness towards public health
concerns due to hazardous chemicals and pesticides is well known. It
does not even have the inventory all the chemicals used in the country
and a register of its ill effects on human health and environment.
It is indeed quite strange that NHRC ignored Union Ministry of
Labour’s concept paper that declares, “The Government of India is
considering the ban on use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect
the workers and the general population against primary and secondary
exposure to Chrysotile form of Asbestos. The Concept paper of the
Central Government notes, “Asbestosis is yet another occupational
disease of the Lungs which is on an increase under similar
circumstances warranting concerted efforts of all stake holders to
evolve strategies to curb this menace” (MOLE, 2011).
As to NIOH study, while one disagrees with the findings of the
conflict of interest ridden study conducted by the National Institute
of Occupational Health, (NIOH), it is evident that even this study
does not state that chrysotile asbestos is not a hazardous chemical.
Had NIOH study concluded that Chrysotile Asbestos is not a hazardous
chemical it may have become relevant. But even then it would have been
legally unsustainable because under Indian laws chrysotile asbestos is
a hazardous chemical.
NHRC ignored the fact that Union Minister of State for Environment and
Forests had informed the Rajya Sabha in a written reply that the study
of the health status of the workers and the residents in the vicinity
of the asbestos industry by NIOH, Ahmedabad was co-sponsored by the
Asbestos Cement Products Manufactures Association (ACPMA). Out of a
total of Rs. 59.66 lacs allocated for the study by Ministry of
Chemicals and Fertilizers, the Asbestos Cement Products Manufactures
Association has contributed Rs. 16 lacs (PIB, 2008).
NHRC ignored that fact that every Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
Report of every asbestos based factory itself admits that asbestos is
a hazardous substance. The EIA report is prepared under EIA
Notification notified under Environment Protection Act, 1986. A reply
sent to the author by the Ministry of Environment & Forests shared a 7
page note of Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC)’ dated
June 18, 2013 on the issue of Government of Indias position on
hazardous substance chrysotile asbestos at the Sixth Conference of
Parties of (CoP-6) of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed
Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
International Trade held during April 28-May 10, 2013 in Switzerland.
As to NIOH’s role, a perusal of this 7 page long note of the
Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals (DCPC), Union Ministry of
Chemicals and Fertilizers on the subject of Chrysotile Asbestos titled
“Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals View on the use of
Chrysotile Asbestos” in the country along with MoEF ‘s letter reveals
that the contention of MoEF based DCPC’s note stating that “On the
basis of the said note, the listing of Chrysotile Asbestos under Annex
-A of Rotterdam Convention at CoP-6 during April 28th -May 10th 2013
at Geneva could not be supported” was/is misplaced. The note of the
“line department”, i.e. Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals
(DCPC), Union Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers on the subject
chrysotile asbestos illustrates that it has failed to understand the
purpose of the Rotterdam Convention and ignorance about the objective
of the Convention.
NHRC ignored the objective of Article 1 of the Rotterdam Convention
which reads: “The objective of this Convention is to promote shared
responsibility and cooperative efforts among Parties in the
international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to protect
human health and the environment from potential harm and to contribute
to their environmentally sound use, by facilitating information
exchange about their characteristics, by providing for a national
decision-making process on their import and export and by
disseminating these decisions to Parties.”
NHRC has been kept in dark about the concluding sentence of the
DCPC’s note which reads: “In view of the above, India may take a stand
in the next CoP meeting of Rotterdam Convention for not inclusion of
chrysotile asbestos in Annexure-III of Convention.” NHRC ignored the
fact that the note is irrelevant from the point of view of the
objective of the Convention for which it was prepared. It ignored that
the NIOH study which has been mentioned was admittedly tainted because
of proven conflict of interest and thus its inference was
questionable. This was admitted in the Parliament by the Labour
Minister and the Environment Minister. The Press Information Bureau
(PIB) release with regard to the same is available on its website
which reveals that the conclusion of the DCPC’s note titled
“Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals’ View on the use of
Chrysotile Asbestos in the country” is based on manifestly flawed
reasoning.
NHRC ignored the fact that at the first meeting, the Chemical Review
Committee (CRC) under the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed
Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides
in International Trade, the committee agreed to recommend to the
Conference of the Parties that Chrysotile Asbestos should be listed in
Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. The CRC is a group of
government designated experts established in line with Article 18 of
the Convention that evaluates candidate chemicals for possible
inclusion in the Convention. Chrysotile (serpentine forms of asbestos)
is included in the PIC procedure as an industrial chemical.
NHRC has failed to appreciate that what is poisonous and hazardous
within India cannot be deemed non-poisonous and non-hazardous under
the unscientific influence of DCPC and Asbestos Cement Products
Manufacturers Association (ACPMA) at the conference of Parties of
Rotterdam Convention. DCPC’s untenable position is ridiculous.
NHRC ignored the fact that the Union Ministry of Finance has
announcement that asbestos related diseases will be covered under
Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (National Health Insurance Scheme) is
an acknowledgement of the fact that asbestos is a health hazard
although this is hardly sufficient in the absence of environmental and
occupational infrastructure.
NHRC failed to get the report of the 13 member- Advisory Committee of
Union Ministry of Labour which has been set up to implement Supreme
Court’s order. This Advisory Committee is supposed to incorporate the
ILO resolution of 2006 in the matter of asbestos as per Supreme
Court’s order of 1995 and 2011 under the Chairmanship of Joint
Secretary, Union Ministry of Labour but as of November 20, 2016, the
Advisory Committee has not submitted its report despite the fact that
more than 4 years have passed since it was entrusted the task on
January 23, 2012. The ministry is supposed to incorporate specific
directions of the Court with regard to fresh ILO Resolution of June
14, 2006 introducing a ban on all mining, manufacture, recycling and
use of all forms of asbestos besides WHO’s resolution of 2005 seeking
elimination of future use of asbestos.
NHRC ignored the approval and the recommendations of the Chemical
Review Committee under Rotterdam Convention that has endorsed listing
of chrysotile asbestos in the PIC list of hazardous substances.
NHRC ignored the fact that Government of India’s Environmental Impact
Assessment, Guidance Manual for Asbestos Based Industries. The Manual
refers to WHO’s “Environmental Health Criteria 203; Chrysotile
Asbestos (http://www.who.int/en/)” but fails to incorporate the
criteria. Although requirements underlined in the Manual has neither
been complied with in the past nor are they being adhered to at the
present and it is quite unlikely that it will be done in future, NHRC
has failed to apply it mind to such grave situation.
NHRC ignored that the official Inventory of Hazardous Chemicals Import
in India lists “Asbestos” at serial no. 26 as one of the 180 hazardous
chemicals in international trade which is imported in India. This
inventory has been prepared by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB),
under Union Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India.”
NHRC ignored that Schedule I of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling
and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 provides the List of Processes Generating
Hazardous Wastes. The list has 36 processes generating hazardous
wastes. It may be noted that Production of Asbestos or Asbestos
containing materials which generates Asbestos-containing residues,
Discarded Asbestos, Dust/particulates from exhaust gas treatment is at
the serial no. 15 in the list.
NHRC ignored the Schedule VI of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling
and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 which provides List of Hazardous Wastes
Prohibited for Import and Export. The list had 30 such hazardous
wastes which are also covered under UN’s Basel Convention on
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The
list mentions Waste Asbestos (Dust and Fibers) at serial no. 16 with
its Basel No. A2050.
NHRC ignored that the Factories Act, 1948, which provides the list of
29 industries involving hazardous processes is given under Section 2
(cb), Schedule First, asbestos is mentioned at serial no. 24. The Act
defines “hazardous process” as “any process or activity in relation to
an industry specified in the First Schedule where, unless special care
is taken, raw materials used therein or the intermediate or finished
products, bye-products, wastes or effluents thereof would–(i) cause
material impairment to the health of the persons engaged in or
connected therewith, or (ii) result in the pollution of the general
environment” . This leaves no doubt that asbestos is a hazardous
substance.
NHRC ignored the findings of Supreme Court constituted High Powered
Committee (HPC) headed by Prof. MGK. Menon (by order dated October 13,
1997) for examination of all matters relating to hazardous wastes. The
HPC had dealt with issues of asbestos based industries and their
wastes.
NHRC ignored the findings of Supreme Court constituted Technical
Experts Committee on Hazardous Wastes relating to Ship-breaking in
2006-7 that had asked National Institute of Occupational Health,
(NIOH) to undertake an epidemiological study was planned to find out
the magnitude of asbestos related health problems and other disorders
among ship breaking workers. The study observed that 15 (16 %) of 94
workers occupationally exposed to asbestos showed linear shadows on
chest X-rays, and 26 workers (39%) showed restrictive impairment. But
despite Supreme Court’s order dated January 27, 1995 fixing Rs 1 lakh
for victims of asbestos related diseases these workers have not been
compensated.
NHRC ignored the report of the Working Group of a Planning Commission
on Occupational Safety and Health at the workplace which noted that
“The workers are also exposed to a host of hazardous substances, which
have a potential to cause serious occupational diseases such as
asbestosis…” It has recorded that various studies conducted by the
Central Labour Institute have revealed substantial prevalence of
occupational health disorders amongst the workers such as Asbestosis.
The prevalence rate for Asbestosis was reported to be 7.25%” (Planning
Commission, 2001).
In its report dated 1 August, 2011, NHRC provided details of its
interventions including Banning use of white asbestos wherein it
claimed “The Commission took cognizance of a complaint that about
fifty thousand people die every year in the country from
asbestos-related cancer. The complainant requested the Commission’s
intervention to ban chrysotile asbestos (white asbestos), which is
used on walls and roofs claiming that it caused various incurable
diseases, and that the Government illogically had technically banned
the mining of asbestos but allowed its import from countries which do
not let it be used domestically. The Commission issued notices to the
Secretaries of the Union Ministries of Chemical & Fertilizers,
Environment & Forest, Health & Family Welfare, Industry & Commerce,
and Labour and to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union
Territories, calling for reports on the issues raised in the
complaint” (NHRC, 2011).
NHRC failed to appreciate that Russia, the world’s biggest asbestos
producer remains India’s biggest supplier of raw asbestos given the
fact that India has banned asbestos mining because of its deleterious
impact on health. India remains the world’s biggest asbestos importer.
India is consuming 15 % of the total world asbestos production, as per
US Geological Survey estimates.
NHRC ignored its own statement dated June 5, 2012, wherein it wrote,
“The Commission had asked them (the central and state authorities) to
share with it the information on the action taken by them with regard
to the Supreme Court judgment dated the January 21, 2011 in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2004 on exposure to asbestos.” It further
wrote, “The Commission, while seeking their responses, had
particularly drawn their attention the Supreme Court directions with
regard to Para 16 of the Writ Petition, which are as follows: a)
Ministry of Labour in the Union of India and Department of Industries
and Labour in all the State Government shall ensure that the
directions contained in the judgment of this Court in the case of
Consumer Education and Research Centre (supra) are strictly adhered
to; b) In terms of the above judgment of this Court as well as reasons
stated in this judgment, we hereby direct the Union of India and the
States to review safeguards in relation to primary as well as
secondary exposure to asbestos keeping in mind the information
supplied by the respective States in furtherance to the earlier
judgment as well as fresh resolution passed by the ILO”(NHRC, 2012).
NHRC’s final order of August 2016 ignored its own statement.
NHRC ignored the decision of Kerala Human Rights Commission dated
January 31, 2009 with the following recommendations: a) The State
Government will replace asbestos roofs of all school buildings under
its control with country tiles in a phased manner. b) The Government
will take steps to see that the schools run under the private
management also replace the asbestos roofs with country tiles by
fixing a time frame. c) The Government should see that in future no
new school is allowed to commence its functions with asbestos roofs.
It is noteworthy that “Asbestos poisoning” was highlighted in a
meeting of the Core Group of NGOs that discussed Right to Environment
which was held in the Commission on September 12, 2007, under the
chairmanship of Justice Y. Bhaskar Rao, Member NHRC. The order of NHRC
in August 2016 ignored these deliberations.
NHRC ignored the Supreme Court’s order dated January 27, 1995 and
recommendation of World Health Organisation (WHO)’s outline for the
Development of National Programmes for elimination of asbestos related
diseases’ make a case for stopping all asbestos based products to
prevent the imminent public health crisis as a consequence of which
more than 60 countries have banned all forms of asbestos (Supreme
Court, 1995). This order has been reiterated in 2011 by the Court.
NHRC ignored, Vision Statement on Environment and Human Health (Para
4.3.1) of Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change
(MoEFCC) that reads: “Alternatives to asbestos may be used to the
extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out” (MoEFCC).
NHRC ignored the reply to NHRC dated May 29, 2012, Joint Secretary,
Government of Uttarakhand in Case No.2951/30/0/2011, has submitted to
the NHRC a document Medline Plus Trusted Health Information for You,
U.S. National Library of Medicine and the prescription of National
Institutes of Health (NIH) highlighting the Treatment stating: “There
is no cure. Stopping exposure to asbestos is essential.”
NHRC ignored the submission of Secretary, Medical Education &
Research, Chandigarh Administration which has categorically informed
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that “a. White Asbestos
(Chrysotile Asbestos) is implicated in so many studies with the
following diseases:-Mesothelioma (Cancer of Pleura), Lung Cancer,
Peritoneal Cancer, Asbestosis, And also consider as cause of following
cancers:- Ovarian Cancer, Laryngeal Cancer, Other Cancer b. Diseases
are produced in the person involved in Asbestos Industry.” It states
that “No. of cancer deaths due to asbestos requires further large
scale study from India”. It informed NHRC that “It is definitely
harmful material, causing cancer and other related diseases.” It
quoted from Pulmonary Medicine journal saying, “Asbestos is a set of
six naturally occurring silicate minerals exploited commercially for
their desirable physical properties. However, it has been proved
beyond doubt that Asbestos is hazardous to humans. White asbestos has
been found to have causal relationship with various diseases like
pulmonary asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma leading to deaths
of thousands of people every year.” Considering the risk, its use has
been banned more than 50 countries including Japan, European Union and
Australia and efforts are being made for its prohibition in many
countries.
The reply of Chandigarh Administration concluded saying, “Hence, use
of white asbestos should be completely banned in India also and the
same may be replaced by some safe alternative material.” Chandigarh
Administration has realized the public health consequences of exposure
to fibers of asbestos. In a separate reply to NHRC, Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh has referred to para 16 of
the judgment of Supreme Court dated January 21, 2011 passed in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.260 of 2004 wherein directions of January 27, 1995
in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 206 of 1986 is required to be
strictly adhered to. It further states, “In terms of the above
judgement of this Court as well as reasons stated in this judgement,
we hereby direct the Union of India and States to review safeguards in
relation to primary as well as secondary exposure to asbestos keeping
in mind the information supplied by the respective States in
furtherance to the earlier judgement as well as fresh resolution
passed by the ILO. Upon such review, further directions, consistent
with law, shall be issued within a period of six months from the date
of passing of this order.” As to ‘fresh resolution passed by the ILO’,
it is noteworthy that “A Resolution concerning asbestos was adopted by
the International Labour Conference at its 95th Session in 2006.
Noting that all forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are
classified as human carcinogens by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC), and expressing its concern that workers
continue to face serious risks from asbestos exposure, particularly in
asbestos removal, demolition, building maintenance, ship breaking and
waste handling activities, it calls for: – the elimination of the
future use of asbestos and the identification and proper management of
asbestos currently in place as the most effective means to protect
workers from asbestos exposure and to prevent future asbestos-related
diseases and deaths.” NHRC ignored this resolution as well. It also
ignored the fact that the United Nations Committee of Experts on the
Transportation of Dangerous Goods classifies Chrysotile Asbestos in
Hazard Class and Packing Group.
This backdrop makes it pertinent to note that Justice Dattu began
serving as the chairperson of the NHRC in February 2016. Prior to him
Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice Cyriac Joseph headed the
Commission that looked into the issue of banning use of White
Asbestos. It appears that concerned institutions got intimidated by
the influence of asbestos industry through its non-profit NGO, ACPMA.
The “Direction” of NHRC is a setback to public health amidst epidemic
of asbestos related diseases.
Excerpts from a paper presented at 14th World Bioethics Congress, Bangalore
https://counterview.org/2018/12/13/chrysotile-asbestos-violation-of-ethics-by-nioh-and-nhrc-has-caused-public-health-hazard/
2. Asbestos Opens New Legal Front in Battle Over Johnson’s Baby Powder
Johnson & Johnson says its product is safe. But asbestos, a carcinogen
that can exist underground near talc, was a concern inside the company
for decades.
Johnson & Johnson says that its Johnson’s Baby Powder has never
contained asbestos and that claims are based on “junk science.”
By Roni Caryn Rabin and Tiffany Hsu
The memos were concise and direct.
An executive at Johnson & Johnson said the main ingredient in its
best-selling baby powder could potentially be contaminated by
asbestos, the dangerous mineral that can cause cancer. He recommended
to senior staff in 1971 that the company “upgrade” its quality control
of talc.
Two years later, another executive raised a red flag, saying the
company should no longer assume that its talc mines were
asbestos-free. The powder, he said, sometimes contained materials that
“might be classified as asbestos fiber.”
The carcinogen, which often appears underground near talc, has been a
concern inside the company for decades. In hundreds of pages of memos,
executives worried about a potential government ban of talc, the
safety of the product and a public backlash over Johnson’s Baby
Powder, a brand built on a reputation for trustworthiness and health.
Executives proposed new testing procedures or replacing talc outright,
while trying to discredit research suggesting that the powder could be
contaminated with asbestos, according to corporate documents unearthed
by litigation, government records obtained by The New York Times
through the Freedom of Information Act, and interviews with scientists
and lawyers.
In one instance, Johnson & Johnson demanded that the government block
unfavorable findings from being made public. An executive ultimately
won assurances from an official at the Food and Drug Administration
that the findings would be issued only “over my dead body,” a memo
summarizing the meeting said.
Those efforts are now forming the crux of a new legal front in a
long-running battle over Johnson’s Baby Powder, potentially leaving
the company exposed in nearly 12,000 lawsuits across the country
claiming that the product can cause cancer.
This summer, 22 women with ovarian cancer successfully sued the
company, arguing that Johnson & Johnson knew about the connection
between talc and asbestos. A jury in St. Louis awarded them $4.69
billion, one of the largest personal injury verdicts ever.
The company lost two other cases this year, in California and New
Jersey, brought by people with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of
internal organs that is associated with asbestos.
The prospect of asbestos “puts the defense in a much more difficult
position,” said Nathan Schachtman, a lawyer who has defended asbestos
companies. “You get a much higher degree of indignation from juries.”
Shares of Johnson & Johnson dropped 10 percent on Friday on an article
by Reuters about the asbestos concerns related to Johnson’s Baby
Powder.
Johnson & Johnson is appealing the three asbestos-related cases. The
company has won three cases related to mesothelioma, while four others
were declared mistrials.
Dec. 14, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/baby-powder-asbestos-johnson-johnson.html
3. Special Report: J&J knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
Lisa Girion
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Darlene Coker knew she was dying. She just
wanted to know why.
Darlene Coker is shown on a kitchen table full of many personal
pictures of her family life in California, U.S. August 15, 2018.
Picture taken August 15, 2018. REUTERS/Mike Blake
She knew that her cancer, mesothelioma, arose in the delicate membrane
surrounding her lungs and other organs. She knew it was as rare as it
was deadly, a signature of exposure to asbestos. And she knew it
afflicted mostly men who inhaled asbestos dust in mines and industries
such as shipbuilding that used the carcinogen before its risks were
understood.
Coker, 52 years old, had raised two daughters and was running a
massage school in Lumberton, a small town in eastern Texas. How had
she been exposed to asbestos? “She wanted answers,” her daughter Cady
Evans said.
Fighting for every breath and in crippling pain, Coker hired Herschel
Hobson, a personal-injury lawyer. He homed in on a suspect: the
Johnson’s Baby Powder that Coker had used on her infant children and
sprinkled on herself all her life. Hobson knew that talc and asbestos
often occurred together in the earth, and that mined talc could be
contaminated with the carcinogen. Coker sued Johnson & Johnson,
alleging that “poisonous talc” in the company’s beloved product was
her killer.
J&J denied the claim. Baby Powder was asbestos-free, it said. As the
case proceeded, J&J was able to avoid handing over talc test results
and other internal company records Hobson had requested to make the
case against Baby Powder.
Coker had no choice but to drop her lawsuit, Hobson said. “When you
are the plaintiff, you have the burden of proof,” he said. “We didn’t
have it.”
That was in 1999. Two decades later, the material Coker and her lawyer
sought is emerging as J&J has been compelled to share thousands of
pages of company memos, internal reports and other confidential
documents with lawyers for some of the 11,700 plaintiffs now claiming
that the company’s talc caused their cancers — including thousands of
women with ovarian cancer.
A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as
deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the
early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes
tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company
executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted
over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to
regulators or the public.
The documents also depict successful efforts to influence U.S.
regulators’ plans to limit asbestos in cosmetic talc products and
scientific research on the health effects of talc.
A small portion of the documents have been produced at trial and cited
in media reports. Many were shielded from public view by court orders
that allowed J&J to turn over thousands of documents it designated as
confidential. Much of their contents is reported here for the first
time.
Dec 14, 2018
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-cancer-special-report/special-report-jj-knew-for-decades-that-asbestos-lurked-in-its-baby-powder-idUSKBN1OD1RQ
4. US Jury awards $4.7bn damages against Johnson & Johnson in talcum cancer case
A jury in St Louis, Missouri, has ordered Johnson and Johnson to pay
$550m (£415m; €471m) in compensatory damages and $4.14bn in punitive
damages to women who alleged that use of the company’s talcum powder
caused them to develop ovarian cancer.
The lawsuit was brought by 22 women from across the US, six of whom
have since died. More than 9000 former US talcum customers have lodged
suits against the company. Most claim damages for ovarian cancer, but
some allege that using the product led them to develop mesothelioma.
The award is by far the biggest yet against Johnson and Johnson in
litigation relating to talcum powder and the first case in which
plaintiffs alleged that asbestos in talcum powder caused their
disease.
July 2018
https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3135
5. J&J Baby Powder litigation takes new focus with asbestos claims
Tina Bellon
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A $117 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson
and a supplier in favor of a man who said his asbestos-related cancer
was caused by long-term use of J&J’s Baby Powder could open a new
front for thousands of cases claiming the widely-used product caused
cancer, legal experts and plaintiffs lawyers said.
April 2018
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-cancer-lawsuit-analys/jj-baby-powder-litigation-takes-new-focus-with-asbestos-claims-idUSKBN1HN0FR
--
Gopal Krishna
Mb: 9818089660
Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI)
Web:www.asbestosfreeindia.org
....years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up
my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said
then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and
while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in
prison, I am not free.
-------Eugene Debs, five times Presidential candidate of USA & author of *Walls
and Bars*
"We may admire what he does, but we despise what he is."-referring
to humans who act mechanically on instructions
-------Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1792
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages