Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

Some mouthwash has been implicated in oral cancers. It wouldn't take long for sales to tank and alternative formulation and branding to seize the market.

Smart investors would of course have a time machine to cash out before that happened.

View on HN

Listerine is one of the most heavily studied oral care products in all of history.

It is also the only nationally branded antiseptic mouthwash in the U.S. that has earned the ADA seal of acceptance(American Dental Association.)

While we can accept what you're saying is a risk, I think it is exceedingly unlikely.

If you'd told me stocks in high street shops would be a risk investment because of online shopping when Amazon started I would have laughed in your face. They are not immensely un-risky holdings any more, because people's shopping habits moved. Look at Macy's value. It's way down from peak.

Revlon is a major consumer brand. How many people know about its involvement in haemophilia treatment, and the downside risks? Its in bancruptcy. How can a brand with that kind of recognition, which also owned Elizabeth Arden, tank?

I love listerine strips. I use them all the time. I haven't used TCP mouthwash since a big panic around phenols, and TCE in the 80s. I think the market moved. I certainly don't use Listerine any more, or use "fishermens friends" mouth lozenges which have chloroform in then (or used to)

The risk isn't "cancer" its "ohmygod cancer" headlines.

I appreciate the pushback, and love how you're thinking about this.

Negative press can always be a head headwind.

I'd counter, if you look across the world, as oral hygiene has become a greater focus as we learn to appreciate it's importance in overall wellness, there is a huge positive trend: Health organizations and governments are spending huge amounts of money to support the adoption and frequent use of products like antiseptic mouthwash.

Bad headlines can certainly stifle volumes a bit, but long-term I am not sure they'd ever be enough to counter the concentrated efforts of so many major establishments.

I'll trust second-hand info received from Sloan Kettering oral cancer specialists instead, thank you.

Also:

"Alcohol-based mouthwash as a risk factor of oral cancer"

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6982979/

Conclusions:

"It cannot be guaranteed that the use of mouthwash represents an independent risk factor for the development of head and neck cancer. However, the risk does increase when it occurs in association with other carcinogenic risk factors."

Yes, exactly. The statement contradicts the author's position that is "exceedingly unlikely" to be a cause of oral cancer. Taken together with the medical consensus that alcohol itself is a considered to be a cause of oral cancer I have to wonder why anyone would be completely surprised by the conclusion that alcoholic mouthwash also increases the risk of cancer.

In the article:

"Listerine also has years of comprehensive clinical research supporting the health benefits, as well as potential risks, of its use. This should greatly reduce concern around the possibility of future product lawsuits."

I should have elaborated in my previous comment - I don't think there is zero risk. When I said exceedingly unlikely, I meant as an overall material risk.

If you do hold the belief the risk is material, you can factor a scenario analysis and create a blended EV to apply to valuation approach. This would help reflect the risk when trying to price the royalties.

I appreciate the criticism! Love reading all these different perspectives.

Some mouthwash has been implicated in oral cancers.

Listerine has offered an alcohol-free (alcohol being the concern for oral cancer) version for quite a while.

Presumably they still pay out on that, but I wonder if with sufficient shift in formulation and brand, they could get out of it?

AFAIK, they must pay for volumes of all products sold under the Listerine brand name, regardless of formulation.

I don't think the American public cares too much about products which cause cancer. Certainly not enough to punish companies from a sales standpoint. Johnson & Johnson have known for decades that they sold talc powder contaminated with asbestos and was killing people, but consumers never punished them for it. You can't even tell by looking at a graph of the last 5 years of JNJ stock when this news came out and were fined for it. It didn't make a dent. They won't even pay the fine. They spun up a new company to own the liability and are declaring it bankrupt instead. They *STILL* sell asbestos talc powder outside the US and Canada.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com