The record
In August 1975 the CTFA standards committee voted to use “nondetected” terminology rather than a 0.5 percent maximum limit, and adopted a cosmetic-talc definition “containing no detectable fibrous asbestos minerals.”
Claim scope
The precise dated act (August 1975) by which the industry replaced a numeric limit with a method-dependent term of art. Corroborated independently by PMID 31095409, which cites the CTFA Standards Committee minutes of August 21, 1975 and quotes: “After extensive discussions of advantages and disadvantages of listing a 0.5% maximum limit as opposed to ‘nondetected’ terminology, the Standards Committee voted for the use of . . . ‘nondetected.’”
What this source does not establish
Adoption of a term of art is not itself proof any product was contaminated.
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. This is the strongest dual-sourced entry in the timeline: a published appellate opinion AND a PubMed-indexed peer-reviewed paper document the same August 1975 committee vote.
Source
Case Citation — McNeal v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, No. B313472 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Div. 8, July 5, 2022) (published; reporter cite UNVERIFIED)