If the report is accurate, then how can consumers know in time to avoid dangerous health effects?

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

I call your attention to step 4. If the consumers don't know that a product they're using is damaging them irreversibly, how can they make an informed choice?

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?

Consumers didn't know it for four decades.

I think GP meant that free-market solutions to corporate malfeasance are very slow and leave many dead people in their wake. Sometimes they never happen at all, at least not without government intervention.

Which definitely won’t have asbestos?