FDA Says It Found Asbestos In Makeup At Claire's
Claire’s stores, such as this one in New York, are a common sight in U.S. malls. The company says its “products are safe” and disputes the FDA’s findings, saying they “show significant errors.”
Seth Wenig/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Seth Wenig/AP
U.S. regulators say several makeup products from Claire’s stores tested positive for asbestos, a mineral that has been linked to deadly cancers.
The Food and Drug Administration tested makeup from Claire’s and the retailer Justice, both of which market their products to young girls and teens. In a statement Tuesday, the agency reported that it found that three product samples from Claire’s and one from Justice contained the substance, and it released a safety alert about the products.
Claire’s says that “out of an abundance of caution,” it has removed the three products — eye shadows, compact powder and contour powder — from stores and is “also removing any remaining talc based cosmetic products.” Talc is a substance that sometimes contains asbestos and has been linked to lung cancer in miners.
But Claire’s says its “products are safe” and disputes the test results, saying they “show significant errors.” The retailer says the tests “have mischaracterized fibers in the products as asbestos.”
Claire’s, which sells jewelry and accessories and pierces ears, is a common sight at shopping malls, with more than 2,400 locations in North America and Europe as of last August.
The FDA said the Justice product, a shimmer powder, had already been recalled from the market in 2017.
Other independent testers dispute Claire’s claim that these products are safe. The U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a consumer advocacy group, released results last March that said its testing showed that the same three Claire’s products contained asbestos.
Asbestos is believed to cause mesothelioma, a type of cancer affecting the lining of the chest and abdomen, and is linked to an increased risk of other forms of cancer and lung disease.
In its statement, the FDA called for more expansive authority to regulate cosmetics, saying the law about its role has not been updated since it first entered into force in 1938.
“The current law does not require cosmetics to be reviewed and approved by the FDA prior to being sold to American consumers,” it said, adding that total responsibility for the safety of these products now rests with the companies that make them.
“To be clear, there are currently no legal requirements for any cosmetic manufacturer marketing products to American consumers to test their products for safety,” the FDA said. For example, the agency says that in this case, it did not have the authority to force Claire’s to pull the potentially dangerous products off store shelves.
It says it wants to work with Congress to “modernize” the way cosmetics are regulated in the United States.
This isn’t the first time testers say they have found traces of asbestos in Claire’s products. The Dutch government said last year that it found asbestos in two products, following the release of the U.S. PIRG report. In response, Claire’s insisted that the products are safe and questioned the testing methodology.
Another company has also come under recent scrutiny over the risk of asbestos contamination. “Johnson & Johnson had known for decades about the risk of asbestos contamination in its popular baby powder and other talc-based body powders, but tried to keep negative information from reaching the public,” the New York Times reports. “The company received subpoenas for more information last month from the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department.”
Sports Stadium Shrinkage Is A Trend. Who's To Blame For Attendance Drop?
Some baseball teams, the Tampa Bay Rays for example, have torn out seats because of a drop in attendance. Teams have explanations for stadium shrinkage, but commentator Mike Pesca has his own ideas.
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
Attending a major league baseball game is expensive. Bringing the whole family can be almost impossible for some, so many people don’t. Although some teams, like the Yankees, still attract big crowds, the Tampa Bay Rays are acknowledging a new reality. Having priced many fans out of the park, they’ve torn out many of the seats. Commentator Mike Pesca sees a trend.
(SOUNDBITE OF SONG, “TAKE ME OUT TO THE BALLGAME”)
MIKE PESCA, BYLINE: “Take Me Out To The Ballgame” was written 101 years ago, and most of the sentiment still stands. You can still buy peanuts and Cracker Jack. It’s still one, two, three strikes, you’re out. The only update might be the line, take me out with the crowd. Sixty-seven million fans attended a regular season baseball game last year, but those numbers were down from the year before. And some of that is, actually, by design, as in the design of ballparks. The seating capacity of stadia across American sports – not just baseball – is shrinking. The Tampa Bay Rays will be playing for about 26,000 fans maximum. That’s 5,000 fewer seats than they have now. The Las Vegas Raiders will soon debut in a stadium that will be among the three most compact in the game. All 16 major league teams that have moved in the past 20 years are playing in tighter confines than they once did.
The reason for this shrinkage, the leagues will tell you, is that televised sport has beaten the live experience. As the TVs got better, the traffic got worse, I guess. And the couch beckoned. I just got back from Disney World. Disney movies are clearly cheaper and easier to get to than the live experience. And yet millions more people flock to the Magic Kingdom than did 10 years ago. There is an “Avatar” ride that had a wait time of – let me check the app. It’s on an app now – three hours, five minutes. But with baseball and football, there is so little attention paid to the experience in the park. How about good Wi-Fi or some milling-about zones and food that challenges our collective delusion that Dodger Dogs aren’t inferior, cylindrical foodstuffs? We have been gaslit about Fenway Franks.
Then there’s the gouging. The New York Jets will charge you 40 to $50 for parking. And when you enter the stadium, you have to watch the New York Jets. Owners can continue to shrink their stadiums and their ambitions or they can start rewarding fans who literally give their teams the home field advantage as something other than chickens to be plucked or geese to be fattened before slaughter. Don’t the fans have enough experience with slaughter, especially when we’re talking about fans of the Jets, Rays and Raiders?
(SOUNDBITE OF BILLY JOEL’S “TAKE ME OUT TO THE BALLGAME”)
INSKEEP: (Singing) Take me out…
No, I’m not going to do that. Commentator Mike Pesca hosts the Slate podcast The Gist, which is still very affordable and welcomes new fans. He also wrote the book “Upon Further Review.”
Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
U.S. Cities Skeptical Of FDA Warnings Against Medicine Imports From Canadian Firm
The Food and Drug Administration suggests consumers who get prescription drugs mailed to them via CanaRx are at risk of getting mislabeled or counterfeit drugs. But consumer watchdog groups say the FDA has supplied no evidence that’s happened.
Hero Images/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Hero Images/Getty Images
Cities and local governments in several states say they will continue to use a Canadian company to offer employees prescription drugs at a highly reduced price, even though officials from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have raised safety concerns about the practice.
The municipalities use CanaRx, which connects their employees with brick-and-mortar pharmacies in Canada, Great Britain and Australia to fill prescriptions.
In a letter sent last week to CanaRx, the FDA said the company has sent “unapproved” and “misbranded” drugs to U.S. consumers, jeopardizing patient safety.
The FDA also urged consumers not to use any medicines from CanaRx, which works with about 500 cities, counties, school districts and private employers in the United States to arrange drug purchases. Some of these employers started using the service as far back as 2004.
Prices of drugs from overseas pharmacies can be as much as 70 percent lower than what people pay in the U.S. because the costs are regulated by the foreign governments.
FDA officials would not explain why they waited more than a decade to act. They acknowledged the agency had no reports of anyone harmed by drugs received through CanaRx.
The FDA made its warning as Congress and the Trump administration look into ways to lower drug prices. Last month, Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said he has President Donald Trump’s backing to start a program to begin importing drugs from Canada for state residents.
After DeSantis’ comments, White House officials stressed that any such plan must get state and federal approvals.
The FDA says that in most cases importing drugs for personal use is illegal, although it very rarely has tried to stop Americans from bringing drugs across the Canadian border. It has not stopped retail stores in Florida that have helped consumers buy drugs from Canada since 2003. Nine storefronts were raided by FDA officials in 2017, although the FDA has allowed them to continue operating.
Schenectady County in New York, which has worked with CanaRx since 2004, defended its relationship and has no immediate plans to end it, according to Chris Gardner, the county attorney. “We will wait to see how this plays out, but right now it’s status quo,” Gardner says.
He says CanaRx, which is headquartered in Windsor, Ontario, helped the county save $500,000 on drug costs in 2018. About 25 percent of the county’s 1,200 workers use the program and get their drugs with no out-of-pocket costs. If they use American pharmacies, they generally have a copayment.
“This is a good program, and on the merits it looks lawful, and they are not doing the terrible things that the FDA is suggesting,” Gardner says.
CanaRx officials deny they have been breaking any laws or putting Americans’ health at risk. They say they are not an online pharmacy but a broker between U.S. employees and brick-and-mortar pharmacies in Canada, Australia and Great Britain. People can buy drugs via CanaRx only with a prescription from their doctor.
The company says it has no plans to stop distributing drugs.
“The FDA’s characterizations of the CanaRx business model and operating protocols are completely wrong,” says Joseph Morris, a Chicago-based lawyer for the company. “It is not possible to place an order via any CanaRx website; the websites are informational only.”
Morris says the FDA notice has prompted calls from many municipalities; but so far all say they plan to stick with the company.
The FDA warning says online pharmacies that purport to sell drugs from Canada, Britain and Australia may actually get their drugs from other countries, which would increase the risk consumers are dealing with counterfeit drugs.
CanaRx says that “it contracts with government-licensed physicians, pharmacists and pharmacies in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia … to supply brand name medications, packaged and sealed by the original manufacturer, for direct delivery to all participants.”
Gabriel Levitt is president of pharmacychecker.com, an independent website for U.S. consumers that verifies international pharmacies offering drugs online. He notes that the FDA’s warning letter offered no evidence CanaRx has distributed any counterfeit drugs since it began business almost 20 years ago.
Columbia County, N.Y., has been using CanaRx for about a decade and says the savings allows it to offer employees drugs with no out-of-pocket costs, instead of requiring them to pay as much as a $40 copay in local pharmacies.
“This is bull,” Stephen Acciani, an insurance broker who works with the county, says of the FDA crackdown. “They are not selling unsafe medications.” His recommendation would be for the county, which has more than 600 employees on its health plan, to continue using CanaRx.
Acciani notes that employees receive the medicine through the mail in its original packaging from the manufacturer.
“It will give some clients pause,” says Kate Sharry, a benefits consultant to the city of Fall River, Mass., and more than 100 other municipalities in the state. “How can you not pay attention to this from the FDA?” But she expects the local governments to stay with CanaRx.
Federal health officials under both Republican and Democratic administrations have blocked efforts to legalize importing medication, saying it’s too risky.
“Sometimes a bargain is too expensive,” says Peter Pitts, a former FDA associate commissioner (from 2000 to 2004)who is now president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, a New York-based nonprofit that receives some of its funding from drugmakers.
Pitts, who applauds the FDA action, says it’s difficult for consumers to know when their pills from foreign pharmacies don’t have the correct potency or ingredients. He says doctors may also not realize a patient’s problem stems from issues with the medicine. Instead, the physicians may just change the medication’s dosage. He says it is not safe for Americans to buy drugs that are imported through foreign pharmacies.
Levitt says CanaRx is one of the safest ways for Americans to get drugs from legitimate pharmacies in Canada and other industrialized counties.
The FDA is likely trying to intimidate CanaRx and its clients in local government, Levitt says.
“My biggest fear is they will scare consumers, [who then] won’t take their very safe and effective medications because they hear about this bogus warning,” says Levitt.
“The FDA’s action,” he says, “which appears to try and make those programs look unsafe and sinister, seems to have a political and public relations purpose — one that is perfectly allied with the lobbying agenda of drug companies.”
Levitt points to testimony FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb gave to a House subcommittee last week — just a day before the CanaRx warning, and ahead of his announcement that he will be leaving the FDA next month.
When asked about importing Canadian drugs, Gottlieb did not mention CanaRx, but did say that people going to a “brick and mortar” pharmacy in Canada “are getting a safe and effective drug. I have confidence in the Canadian drug regulatory system.” He added that his concerns are with online pharmacies.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry trade and lobbying group, has cheered the FDA action but denies it had any role in it, says spokeswoman Nicole Longo.
“PhRMA supports the FDA’s efforts to crack down on organizations that are circumventing its robust safety and efficacy requirements,” Longo says. “Drug importation schemes expose Americans to potentially unsafe, counterfeit or adulterated medicines.”
Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service and editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
