> The Lancet published an unsigned commentary in 1977, asserting that there was no need for regulation because the cosmetic industry in both the US and the UK had ensured that their products were virtually free of asbestos fibres … Newly released documents show that The Lancet's commentary was written by a paid consultant of Johnson & Johnson—one of the world's leading manufacturers of cosmetic talc products

Not much of a shock, but - what’s the logic in this argument? “There’s no asbestos now, so there’s no need to regulate?” How does that make sense? Without regulation, how can you verify that there’s no asbestos now, and how can you ensure there will continue to be no asbestos in the future?

Like who would buy an ‘argument’ like that?