Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
reuters.com
reuters.com
What really gets me is that baby powder is marketed towards young mothers and babies. That's a hardcore attitude towards money over life. How can they ever defend that?
Why does that increase the significance of this issue?
This is likely due to the reproductive drive that makes babies cute and men more expendable than women.
Please if you down-vote, do give me some sort of a feedback. It helps me learn and it helps me to not make the same mistake twice. :)
Thus Johnson & Johnson breaking that delicate trust over the issue of vulnerable women and children shows them as profiting from the "weak" and "precious" using products they knew were wrong. Society does not look well upon harmful exploitation at the profit of a few but expense of many, especially when you buy talc powder to use for children trusting that it won't harm you.
People get lung cancer all the time having never smoked.
It's not unreasonable to think there might be a connection.
People don’t seem to realize that there isn’t a cause for every case of cancer. Sometimes you just get cancer even having never been exposed to any risk factors.
EDIT: Removed my qualifier as this directly refutes several child comments.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/s...
The various facets of all transportation industries probably have as much or more asbestos grinding into the air with particulate matter from vehicular brake systems on trains and automobiles, and to a lesser extent aviation.
The soot in the NYC subway is probably ripe with asbestos. Every time I smell that acrid ceramic smell of new brakes on a subway car, I figure I'm catching a whiff of asbestos, and it's a smell I encounter more than talc.
I only know the smell for what it is from changing brake pads on my car a few times, years ago.
Did NYC somehow get a special “kill all the commuters” exemption under the radar, or something?
There are numerous places online saying that most brake pads no longer use asbestos, particularly OEM brake pads. Though I can't find any numbers to back this up. Also, I have no idea how carcinogenic the replacement materials are; I hope they are less dangerous than asbestos.
[0] https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos [1] https://www.mesotheliomatreatmentcenters.org/asbestos/brake-...
You can tell it's working because there's a U-shaped pressure gauge attached to the system showing the differential between under the slab and outside: https://www.clutchprep.com/physics/gauge-u-shaped-tube
The size of of the particles on the average might not be small enough to matter, but over time and volume there will be more than a few small particles.
> The Reuters article is one-sided, false and inflammatory.
> The article ignores that thousands of tests by J&J, regulators, leading independent labs, and academic institutions have repeatedly shown that our talc does not contain asbestos.
[1] https://www.jnj.com/our-company/johnson-johnson-issues-state...
http://www.factsabouttalc.com/#section-safety
[edit] I think the original reply is pretty to the point:
>J&J attorneys provided Reuters with hundreds of documents and directly responded to dozens of questions in order to correct misinformation and falsehoods. Notwithstanding this, Reuters repeatedly refused to meet with our representatives to review the facts and refused to incorporate much of the material we provided them.
>The Reuters article is wrong in three key areas:
>The article ignores that thousands of tests by J&J, regulators, leading independent labs, and academic institutions have repeatedly shown that our talc does not contain asbestos.
>The article ignores that J&J has cooperated fully and openly with the U.S. FDA and other global regulators, providing them with all the information they requested over decades. We have also made our cosmetic talc mines and processed talc available to regulators for testing. Regulators have tested both, and they have always found our talc to be asbestos-free.
>The article ignores that J&J has always used the most advanced testing methods available to confirm that our cosmetic talc does not contain asbestos. Every method available to test J&J’s talc for asbestos has been used by J&J, regulators, or independent experts, and all of these methods have all found that our cosmetic talc is asbestos-free.
Strange word there, what other types of talc do they make?
I'm inclined to believe J&J is heavily bullshitting here given how misleading their talc site is.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5080806-2018-lab-rep...
> "Based on the results of our analysis, it can be stated, that individuals who used 1978 Johnson's Baby Powder would have, more likely than not, been exposed to fibrous amphibole asbestos."
Caveats that this likely came from a plaintiff's attorney, but the methods seem solid.
Another fun one from J&J's scientists in 1973:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5005205-April-26-197...
> "The talcs contain widely varying amounts of tremolite or fibrous talc. Our Baby Powder contains talc fragments classifiable as fiber. [...] It should be cautioned, however, that no final product will ever be made which will be totally free of respirable particles."
They knew their product had respirable particles, including nonzero quantities fibrous particles.. they lobbied the FDA to use less sensitive tests so that their products wouldn't fail tests, and they lied about it for the past 40 years. I'm shocked they only lost 10% of their company's value today.
What is the definition of particles? I’m not surprised that talcum powder contains respirable (talc) particles.
In the Reuters documents, you see repeated references from scientists / consultants to just swapping the talc for corn starch since it has a larger average particle size and a smaller distribution of sizes -- and importantly, doesn't have any fibrous silicates which can't be guaranteed with mined talc.
I’d like to hear them discuss that part of the allogations.
Personally I think it should be illegal to run these kinds of studies or pharmaceutical trials without committing to publish the results regardless of outcome.
Then it turns out during the same period they were actively misleading about the problematic nature of their talc. Since then, they've had several other scandals including bribing doctors all over Europe[1], were successfully sued over defective transplants that they knew about[2], shipped a poorly tested and dangerous vaginal mesh that also got them sued[3], among other just awful actions. It's looking more and more like they stumbled onto the correct course with the Tylenol episode and shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt for anything else.
[1] - https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-87.htm
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-verdict/j...
[3] - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/29/revealed-joh...
I revisit this train of thought fairly often. I think it would do a lot of good to investigate what exactly happened to the people who are knowingly participating in this coverup. Maybe ask them if they would like help in their personal lives? Maybe some kind of welfare program where taxpayers subsidize their lifestyle and also pay for a counselor to help them figure out how to lead joyful, wonderful lives without killing the whole world? I'm just brain-storming from my armchair over here; A thorough investigation would probably yield better answers to the question of "How can I meet my needs if I admit that the company I work for sold asbestos to babies for decades without telling anyone?"
I wonder if any studies show any correlation of mesothelioma and drug use...
"least of your worries" is obviously an exaggeration.
While it's true that overdose deaths (attributable in my assessment mostly to bad public policy) have become a leading cause of death, cancer isn't actually far behind.
Overdose deaths (recorded by the CDC as "Poisoning" and classified under "Unintentional Injury" [0]) is the number one cause of death for Americans of both the age group 25-34 and 35-44, but cancer (recorded as "malignant neoplasms") is number four and number two, respectively.
So, if you're in the age group most likely to die from an overdose, then cancer is either the fourth or the second of your worries - far from the least.
Why did you decide to collate by age? It's a non-sequitur.
But generally, one uses lactose or cornstarch.
Always spit in your palm, add a small sample, and mix. If it's gritty or even cloudy, don't buy. If you intend to inject, also don't buy if it's viscous. And always do progressive dosage testing, to reduce the risk of overdose or outright poisoning.
[1] https://www.thecut.com/2016/04/sad-truth-behind-the-baby-pow...
> that asbestos causes mesothelioma and is associated with ovarian and other cancer
Standard newspaper jargon. There’s no proof, but it’ll sell copy anyway.
https://nypost.com/2018/07/11/russian-asbestos-company-puts-...
>And in his 1997 book, “The Art of the Comeback,” he said it is “100% safe, once applied.”
All it needs is a little rebranding.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russian-asbestos-trump_fac...
>"I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented." -Trump, The Art of the Comeback, 1997
When they're not Rolling Coal, Trump supporters should show their faith in their leader and p0wn the libs by snorting up lines of asbestos and rubbing it all over their skin.
EDIT: I'm in no way inferring this is a black and white issue. But I do think it's a worthwhile experiment for the mind.
The question is, what do you once you find out these people? To the gallows? Allow the blame to fall on the inevitable scapegoats? Inconsequential fine?
I'll also add that you would usually want this to be a civil matter. First, because the standard of proof is far lower ("preponderance of evidence" vs "beyond reasonable doubt", i. e. 50% vs, say, 95%), making actual consequences far more likely.
Secondly, you are more likely to get whistleblowers if you focus on punishing organisations and not individuals.
Thirdly, these really are, almost always, actions by organisations undertaken in a sort of collective delusion, where everyone believes their actions are ok because they see so many others participating in it. None of these people would ever murder someone outright. That they happily do so as a group, thousand times over, needs to inform our reaction: it is a systemic failure, a group dynamic gone awry. Treating it as anything else only diminishes our chances to prevent future cases.
Yet another example proving that no corporation considers the interests of the public in any way. I'm baffled that anyone can argue for unfettered free market capitalism with such a bevy of evidence against it.
A sample timeline:
1: J&J discovers asbestos in talc products
2: J&J covers it up
3: Consumers, none the wiser, continue using talc products
4: X consumers contract cancer and die too early, fracturing families and causing unknowable amounts of economic damage in the form of lost productivity
5: Decades later, Reuters publishes report
6: Consumers avoid J&J talc products, shareholders lose some money, possible lawsuits
Is dying a fair cost to inform others about the danger of a product you're using?
Is loss of market value, lawsuit settlements, and regulatory fines a fair consequence for the person who is no longer living?
If a company can cover up health effects, let a bunch of people die, deny everything, and eventually pay some money, is that the market working as intended? What about the people who are dead now, is that money helpful for them?
I don't think we can ever fully trust "the market" to prevent this kind of thing from happening, because companies have no reason to ever admit to wrongdoing that will affect their bottom line, even if lives have been lost. The only time a company will admit wrongdoing, is when the cost of dealing with it publicly is less than the cost of covering it up and possible future liability.
Case-in-point: https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-b...
We could have laws that require compounds created to be used by non-expert end-users, whether for food, topical application, or otherwise, to be tested extensively for long-term health effects before they can be sold. This would be a cost to the manufacturers, but what is the value of a life? How much profit would you allow a company to save in order to kill you with a tainted product?
This statement sort of clearly false and hyperbolic. Why would you make it?
> I'm baffled that anyone can argue for unfettered free market capitalism with such a bevy of evidence against it.
This is a pretty clear sign to me that you don't understand the argument in question. If you can't understand a position well enough to see why someone would support it, then you don't understand the position well enough to reject it.
Name a publicly traded for-profit corporation that exists to serve the public.
At best it's a disregard for the public. You can see it in non-political stories on HN. What percentage of companies have been meaningfully punished by a data breach?
>This is a pretty clear sign to me that you don't understand the argument in question.
I very specifically meant "unfettered free market capitalism" and I could have been more clear. It's the end result of many more popular policies seeking to strip regulations for the sake of making things "more efficient". The fight is obviously about the extent of regulatory removal but "removal of all regulations" is an idea seriously proposed by many. I don't see how our current system needs fewer regulations, especially at a time when corporations are growing through mergers and acquisitions, data is collected and shared more widely, and therefore fewer companies have the ability to affect more individuals.
Look at a sibling comment to yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18685351
>Consumers will obviously avoid J&J baby powder products and switch to a competitor’s baby powder product.
This is exactly the sort of case where the "invisible hand" has failed. Sometimes it's invisible because it's not there.
Eventually the free market might kick in and result in companies like J&J being torn apart. Yet are we really willing to repeat the cycle of a shitty company hiding things that are harmful to the public under the guise of a free market? A free market can only theoretically work when consumers have full access to information that allows them to make rational decisions about what they chose to buy; companies hiding information like that very obviously goes against that core concept.
It sounds to me like a basic problem with freedom of action and human nature in a world of imperfect information. It is hard to regulate deleterious behavior when it only has long term bad effects, especially when those effects are indirect and statistical.
This is not to excuse any immorality or lack of ethics on the part of J&J executives. My point is just that preventing these types of abuses is a hard problem to solve regardless of economic system.
It's easier to regulate behavior when you don't reward executives and businesses who use immoral behavior to increase profits.
There is no magical alternative economic system that gives people ethics and takes away self interest. What you need are strong institutions that provide checks on corruption and malfeasance. Institution such as investigative reporting, good regulations, and independent agencies enforcing those regulations. You need these regardless of if the means of production are publicly or privately owned, regardless of if your prices are set by the free market or by bureaucrats (or by software someday).
> It's easier to regulate behavior when you don't reward executives and businesses who use immoral behavior to increase profits.
Sure, but allowing consumer choice in a free market allows checks on corporate malfeasance that are hard to replicate with regulations. Free markets and regulations can work together better than either on their own. (Or they can work against each other when poorly implemented)
There are certainly problems with how our free market is structured to incentivize short terms profits for share holders over the longer term health of the company. We could do a much better job with regulatory capture and giving executives of major corporations actual jail sentences.
Plenty of nasty products from the Soviet planned economy only there, you wouldn’t have the benefit of competitors or alternatives for the public — assuming you could even good goods at all. People that complain about capitalism have never lived under the alternative.
And the clear answer is to blame both. Especially when the line between corporation and government is blurred due to lobbying and vested interests.
How many times has Goldman Sachs been "penalized" for bypassing regulations? Plenty. Have those penalties amounted to anything? Do you see their behavior changing when they practically own the US government?