The record
In December 1973 the CTFA talc subcommittee reported to its members that inter-laboratory testing of six coded samples showed “strong inconsistency,” concluded the FDA's proposed method “does not provide a truly reliable means for the detection of asbestos in talc,” recommended postponing the FDA regulation, and internally recorded that transmission electron microscopy with electron diffraction “appears to offer the best, most reliable method” capable of detecting chrysotile and tremolite at 0.1 percent — while rejecting it on cost.
Claim scope
The core of the measurement-politics case, in the industry's own December 1973 words and quantified: the trade association identified TEM+ED as best and reliable to 0.1 percent, and set it aside on cost, in the same document in which it asked the FDA to postpone regulation.
What this source does not establish
The methodological criticisms of the FDA's optical method may have been technically valid — the same opinion records the FDA's own director finding poor inter-laboratory correlation. The document does not admit contamination.
Limitations
McNeal is the most valuable opinion in this set for timeline purposes because the court sets out the internal documents in an explicitly dated month-by-month chronology (headings 'a. August 1971' through 's. May 1977'). CRITICAL COUNTERWEIGHT: the court REVERSED the punitive damages award, holding the same evidence did not establish malice, oppression or fraud. Any use of McNeal must carry that disposition. The documents are verified as recounted; the culpability inference was rejected by this court. PMID 31095409 documents the same December 10, 1973 CTFA report independently. The '$130M' figure is as printed in the opinion.
Source
Case Citation — McNeal v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, No. B313472 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Div. 8, July 5, 2022) (published; reporter cite UNVERIFIED)