When I read about something like that, I’d like to hear more than “traces of”. I’d like to see concentrations and levels of concentrations from which it is considered toxic. Products can even have traces of radioactive material while being harmless.
Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
21–30 of 94 posts
Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
#22Everybody knew? Talc deposits often occur near asbestos deposits. There's a govt standard for 'cosmetic' talc that addresses asbestos content, that's been around since 1973.
Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
#23Everybody knew? Talc deposits often occur near asbestos deposits. There's a govt standard for 'cosmetic' talc that addresses asbestos content, that's been around since 1973.
Not only that, J&J appears to meet or exceed that standard, if the article is anything to go by.
Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
#24Makes these stories more relevant. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/business/johnson-talc-can... Almost as if the “free market” doesn’t regulate itself and generate ethical results...
You realize that the FDA (regulator) was award of these results and still didn’t pull it off the market?
Yes, because the so-called "regulators" are in the hands of the companies which they are supposed to supervise. It's a complete perversion.
Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
#25When companies like Marriott and JJ are doing things like this, people incur great losses and there is little to no repurcussion to the companies. Meanwhile, some guy in the street will go to prison for selling some weed. All those who did this at JJ honestly deserves a life sentence at a minimum given abestos exposure leads to mesothelioma. This is some diabolical stuff - something out of a movie, akin to for exampl…
Big corps who can do anything to capture market share and have some sort leverage over the Government cannot be trusted. I guess people just forget about all ethics when huge debt / investment / incentive is involved. Leverage over media and governments along with an army of lawyers and bean counters just makes this whole thing possible. Meanwhile globalisation has arguably made it more difficult for SMEs to market /…
This is a big reason why I'm for regulation when it comes to health, and environment. Somehow conservative Americans are believed that the 'invisible hand of the market' will solve all problems. But companies will always be in it to make money if they feel they can get away with cutting corners.
Would we rather err on cutting a few percent here and there from company profits due to overhead and inefficiency of regulation? Or err on harming people and the planet?
Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
#26We shouldn't be surprised that this sort of thing happens from time to time. What are the incentives? If you're an exec in charge of some product, you want to sell the product. You don't want to be pulling it, you'll never get promoted like that. And you know more about how to move product than about asbestos testing results, that's for sure. And chances are nothing will be discovered. And if it is discovered it will…
> Not saying I have an answer
The answer must involve making the risks outweigh the benefits, through both an increased probability of being caught and a higher level of punishment.
Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
#27Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18684384
I would like to highlight this comment and HN policy on reposts: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
Particularly, this article received significant attention just in the last few days and should be removed as a duplicate.
Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
#28We shouldn't be surprised that this sort of thing happens from time to time. What are the incentives? If you're an exec in charge of some product, you want to sell the product. You don't want to be pulling it, you'll never get promoted like that. And you know more about how to move product than about asbestos testing results, that's for sure. And chances are nothing will be discovered. And if it is discovered it will…
> you want to sell the product
but if it has a carcinogen in it? do you really still want to? i fail to understand how humans can behave like this.
Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
#29I have a question which I don't believe is answered: these people who knew, where they using the powder on their own babies? Because they could be due to mental minimization of the risks associated with the use of their own products.
If they are, and they could be, then humans are more pro-ignorance than I ever thought.
Re: Johnson and Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
#30Everybody knew? Talc deposits often occur near asbestos deposits. There's a govt standard for 'cosmetic' talc that addresses asbestos content, that's been around since 1973.
Not only that, J&J appears to meet or exceed that standard, if the article is anything to go by.
They exceed the standard that they lobbied the government to set. How surprising.