Cracking the Code: Have We Found the Cause of “Idiopathic” Mesothelioma Among U.S. Women?

For years now the asbestos industry has denied full responsibility for mesothelioma among women in the U.S.  They have argued that for most women, mesothelioma is “idiopathic,” meaning “we don’t know what caused it” but, parenthetically, wink-wink, “we didn’t.”

They cite to all kinds of junk science to support their litigation-driven argument.  One report says that asbestos causes only 20% of mesothelioma diagnosed in U.S. women. [E.N. Pavlisko and T.A. Sporn].  While another posits that 60% of mesothelioma diagnosed in U.S. women is simply “idiopathic,” a conclusion derived from the simple fact that these women did not have “occupational” exposure (as opposed to “domestic,” or “environmental” or whatever bizarre box they construct to shift liability).  [A Lacourt, C Gramond, et al, Feb. 7, 2014]

Watson and Crick
Cracking the Genetic Code

Boiled down, their argument is that: 1) only amphibole asbestos causes mesothelioma; 2) amphibole asbestos was used primarily in insulation and construction materials, 3) men (not stay at home women) primarily worked with amphibole asbestos materials; 4) ergo, asbestos primarily causes mesothelioma in men, not women.  

If you’re an asbestos company, this is a great, albeit self-serving, argument.  Most asbestos products sold in the U.S. contained mainly “chrysotile,” not “amphibole,” asbestos.

Not surprisingly, companies that made products with chrysotile asbestos routinely defend mesothelioma lawsuits based on this same argument.  Namely, they seek to prove that the patient was exposed to amphibole asbestos, which they agree causes mesothelioma, at some time in his or her lifetime.  They then try to convince the jury that it was the amphibole asbestos, not their “asbestos lite” chrysotile, that is the culprit.

Fortunately, most juries like solid evidence based on real science.

Recently, a jury in Los Angeles County considered these arguments and found them wanting.  As we have reported, the Winkel case involved claims against Colgate-Palmolive, which sold Cashmere Bouquet, a talcum powder laced with asbestos, for over five decades

It turns out that Cashmere Bouquet was impregnated with both kinds of asbestos – chrysotile and amphibole, depending on which of the three mines they sourced their talc.

As reported, this was the first case that made it to trial against Colgate-Palmolive.  For years the talcum powder industry has spent millions to crush plaintiffs and their lawyers who dared to prove their case to a jury.  As one of their lawyers warned us early on: if you continue this case, we will destroy you, your practice, your clients and your experts.

Why did they fight so ruthlessly?  Like their life depended on it?  We think we know why.

Go back to that high number of conveniently unexplained U.S. women diagnosed with mesothelioma.  Over 60%, they argued, were idiopathic.  Well, idiopathic simply means “we didn’t look hard enough.”  Truth is, they didn’t want anyone taking a hard look at their talcum powder.  You can’t blame them.  If you do look hard, the talcum powder industry is in big trouble.

No matter what box you throw it in – “occupational,” “environmental,” “domestic” or whatever - it’s the worst kind of exposure.  Millions of women used talcum powder.  They used it daily.  They liberally applied it all over their bodies.  They sprinkled it on their undergarments.  They powdered it on their babies.  The intended use of the product generated gobs of visible, fine and respirable dust.  And they never warned anyone that that fragrant fluffy white powder contained toxic and deadly asbestos.

Now questions are being asked.  What other cancers are caused by talcum powder?  For years women have been contracting ovarian cancer and we’ve never fully understood why.  Is ovarian cancer linked to talcum powder?  A jury recently answered “yes” to that question in a case against Johnson and Johnson (see http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-24/women-are-suing-johnson-johnson-over-talcum-powder).

Did we crack the code?  For the last 50 years how many of those U.S. women with “idiopathic” mesothelioma regularly used talcum powder after showering?  Our hunch is plenty.  And the sad part is the talcum powder industry has gotten away with it.

RGW

May 28, 2015

Jury Finds Colgate-Palmolive Talcum Powder Causes Mesothelioma, Awards $13 Million.

Los Angeles County, CA  

A jury in Los Angeles County (Chatsworth) yesterday on April 28, 2015 unanimously found that Colgate-Palmolive’s Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder, which they sold from the 1930s to 1995, caused our client Judith Winkel’s malignant pleural mesothelioma.

The jury deliberated just two hours. They found that Colgate failed to warn consumers about their defective product, among other violations. The jury also found that Colgate, which denied that their product contained asbestos, was guilty of malice, which exposed Colgate to possible punitive damages.

On nearly a daily basis from 1961 to 1977, Judith Winkel used Cashmere Bouquet Talcum powder, primarily after showering. Like every other consumer, she loved the fragrance but had no idea the silky white powder could later cause one of the most insidious cancers known to medicine.

This was the first verdict ever against Colgate-Palmolive, whose army of lawyers argued that their product did not contain asbestos, that Judith Winkel did not use their product, that her life would not be shortened by mesothelioma, and that if she was exposed, the amount was too small to cause mesothelioma.

The jury disagreed, finding that Colgate’s Cashmere Bouquet Talcum Powder was 95% responsible for Judith Winkel’s mesothelioma. The evidence showed that Colgate purchased its talc from mines in Italy, North Carolina, and Montana, and the talc was contaminated with up to 20% asbestos fiber, including the most toxic form of asbestos (viz., amphibole).

The evidence also showed that scientists had begun detecting asbestos in talcum powder since 1942, but Colgate did not begin testing its Cashmere Bouquet for asbestos until 1971. At that time, Colgate was warned that their talcum powder contained dangerous levels of asbestos. But Colgate neither alerted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the health risks, nor did they warn consumers that exposure to their product could cause cancer. 

Judith, a 73 year-old retired office clerk, mother and grandmother who has been married to husband John “Cubby” Winkel since 1964, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in early 2014. She was operated on by Dr. Robert Cameron of UCLA Medical School. Dr. Cameron noted that thoracic surgeons regularly use talcum powder in mesothelioma patients to retard the spread of the tumor, but when they do so they require that the talcum powder be certified as “asbestos free.”

“This trial was about accountability,” said John Winkel. “Colgate made a dangerous product but they refused to admit it. Judy and I are thankful that the jury was not bamboozled by their shenanigans. Now we just want to enjoy the time we have.”

The case was tried by our co-counsel, David Greenstone and Chris Panatier, of Simon Greenstone Panatier  and Bartlett (SGPB). A Colgate lawyer proudly boasted before trial that they would destroy our respective law firms, the Winkels and our experts. Their lawyer also warned us that their war chest to win this case was virtually bottomless.

“While we celebrate the first verdict ever against Colgate-Palmolive, and are thankful for the jury’s service, as well as the courageous work of our colleagues at SGBP,” said Roger Worthington of Worthington & Caron, P.C. “We are also mindful that Judy continues to live with mesothelioma. She and Cubby deserve compensation, but what they really want is to be able to play with their grandchildren and tend to their garden. With Dr. Cameron’s expert guidance, we are hopeful that Judy will be eligible for experimental therapies that will buy her many more years with her grandchildren and her flowers.”

“Dr. Cameron is an incredible physician,” said Cubby. “We are so thankful for his dedication. He’s always been there for us. This is a tough cancer with a bad prognosis but we’re thankful that Dr. Cameron and his team keep searching for a cure.”

Roger Worthington

April 29, 2015