[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.20.4″ custom_padding=”0px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.20.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” custom_padding=”0px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.20.4″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” custom_padding=”0px|25px|25px|25px|false|true” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The US FDA has said it is inspecting certain sun-care products for benzene after a citizen petition claimed dozens of items were tainted with the cancer-causing substance \u2014 an inquiry that could prompt producers to address any safety issues.<\/p>\n
The agency confirmed the examination to Chemical Watch following independent laboratory<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Valisure\u2019s revelation that it had detected benzene in nearly 80 sunscreen and after-sun articles. It petitioned the agency in May to scrutinize them and better regulate the carcinogen\u2019s presence.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A couple of corporations have since pulled several items from retail shelves, while others have responded more slowly, even as legal challenges over benzene contamination mount.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Following its own research, Johnson & Johnson stopped supplying ve product lines in July, spanning all but two of its 26 offerings deemed tainted in Valisure\u2019s request. Still, the multinational was hit with a class action seeking to bar it from selling benzene-containing sunscreens and compensate people for related harms.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The FDA said it is now “securing product samples and performing independent evaluation of collected samples to assess the data presented in the [Valisure] petition”, adding that it will collaborate with producers to handle any risks identified.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
These entities must make sure their goods are nontoxic, the agency said. “We will continue to monitor the sunscreen marketplace to help ensure the availability of safe sunscreens for US consumers,” it said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Since Johnson & Johnson\u2019s sunscreen withdrawal, some of the other 20-plus brands Valisure called out have taken steps to deal with potential contamination, although others argue the threat is minimal.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
CVS Health said it removed two after-sun sprays from stores “out of an abundance of caution” the day after Johnson & Johnson announced its recall. CVS Health said it is engaging with its supplier “to take appropriate additional steps”.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Quest Products, whose Sunburnt after-sun gel was flagged as containing roughly 1 part per million (ppm) of benzene, said it is looking into the matter with its manufacturer and other upstream entities. The manufacturer does not utilize the solvent in sun-care formulations or cleaning articles, Quest Products told Chemical Watch.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
L\u2019Or\u00e9al said it is studying Valisure\u2019s results, adding that the concentrations below 0.1ppm discovered in its La Roche-Posay aerosol sunscreen are non-hazardous. According to Valisure, contamination under this threshold “warrants further investigation but is likely of less concern” than larger amounts needing FDA-initiated withdrawals.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Coppertone-owner Beiersdorf and pharmacy chain Walgreens did not specify what measures they are pursuing in response to Valisure listing benzene levels lower than 0.1ppm in their sun-care articles. Beiersdorf said its sunscreens “are rigorously evaluated for safety” via “comprehensive scientific testing”.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Banana Boat \u2013 which faces at least two class actions alleging benzene contamination \u2013 said its offerings “meet applicable FDA regulations for sunscreens, which are some of the strictest in the world”. However, the brand declined to comment on the lawsuits or its plans to revisit nine items Valisure said contained benzene at under 0.5ppm.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Jason Richards, a partner with Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, one law rm involved in litigation against Banana Boat, said he thinks businesses have been analyzing their sun-care goods for benzene since Valisure published its findings.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
“As additional companies confirm benzene contamination, they will be forced to recall those affected products,” he told Chemical Watch. “This is an industry-wide problem that impacts many different sunscreen brands and manufacturers”, said Mr. Richards, whose rm also brought a similar class action against Neutrogena. “Johnson & Johnson\u2019s recall is not the last domino to fall,” he said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mr. Richards said that corporation\u2019s sunscreen withdrawal foreshadows more “company-led testing and company-led action” from others. “I would expect the manufacturers whose products were shown by Valisure to have the highest benzene content would and should act relatively quickly,” he said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In preparing for litigation, “we have tested our own clients\u2019 Banana Boat sunscreen products and found them to be contaminated,” he said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
While they gradually consider and implement next steps, businesses could see further litigation.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
David Byrne, a principal at Beasley Allen, one law rm behind the Johnson & Johnson suit, said it is “carefully reviewing the sunscreen benzene contamination issues associated with other sun-care product manufacturers”, but has not “made a final decision concerning additional legal action that may be necessary”.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
According to Mr. Richards, “when product contamination cases are alleged and then verified by the company itself, resulting in the company voluntarily pulling the product from the market, that naturally drives more litigation.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
He predicts more class actions and personal injury claims from long-term sunscreen users suffering from blood cancer.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
“Class action lawsuits are being led almost weekly around the country against various sunscreen manufacturers,” he said.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Article Written By: ALM<\/a>\u00a0Law<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The US FDA has said it is inspecting certain sun-care products for benzene after a citizen petition claimed dozens of items were tainted.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":4330,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"\n A verdict has been reached in the first of many cases involving military members getting defective hearing protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere (are) 250,000 individual lawsuits filed at this point in the Northern District of Florida,\u201d said Bryan Aylstock from the Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis and Overholtz law firm in Pensacola. They are the firm that is taking the lead in all of these individual suits against 3M, the manufacturer of the Combat Arms version 2 ear plugs that were used by the military from 2002 to 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The plaintiffs in the cases are military members who have suffered hearing loss. The first of those cases has just ended with a verdict against 3M in federal court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSo, it was three soldiers, all of whom served this country honorably and used these Combat Arms earplugs and suffered hearing damage\" said Aylstock. \"Collectively they received a little bit more than $7.1 million, which is a tremendous verdict. A lot of that was punitive damages, where the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that 3M\u2019s conduct as it relates to these ear plugs was reprehensible and deserved to be punished. And also a message needed to be sent to others, including 3M, who might try to do this in the future, that this is not an acceptable way to conduct your business.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the first lawsuit in what is called mass-tort litigation, which is different than a class-action suit, where all plaintiffs are represented in one law suit. There are two more already on the docket before Judge Casey Rodgers, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere\u2019s a panel called The Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation, and it determined a couple of years ago that Pensacola was the appropriate forum to conduct all of the pretrial activities for all of the cases of this nature.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3M has already settled with the U.S.military for over $9 million, so the mass-tort litigation is only between the company and individual military members, both active duty and veterans. Aylstock fully expects this verdict to be appealed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt will be appealed, and we feel confident that all of the pretrial rulings that Judge Rodgers made, and the trial rulings were appropriate, and the appellate court will also find that they were appropriate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since the verdict there have been no talks of settlement with 3M, so the trials and appeals will continue. Aylstock says he doesn\u2019t know how many rulings for the plaintiffs would bring 3M to the settlement table. Said Aylstock, \u201cIt will be as many as it takes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second trial is set to begin on Monday. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n