FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc
1–10 of 135 posts
Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc
#2So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.
Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc
#3So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.
J&J's actions are also very similar to those of the tobacco industry and oil companies- the dangers of their product were well-known within the industry and yet they took steps to obscure the issue and limit regulation rather than address the problem. (In fact I just did a Google search for "hazardous talc" and the first result is an ad: "Johnson & Johnson | Get the Facts About Talc" https://www.factsabouttalc.com)
In the ceramics industry the dangers of talc are well known, in recent years well-known sources of talc have been closed down due to asbestos contamination. In addition talc-silicosis is a very real concern and we never touch raw talc without an OSHA-approved respirator and dust extraction system.
Article from 1979 about the R. T. Vanderbilt Company's fight to keep talc mines open despite the presence of tremolite: https://www.nytimes.com/1979/12/03/archives/new-yorks-talc-m...
Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc
#4So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.
Don't leave out the step where you hire a bunch of politicians/friends/relatives to your board and send some of your execs to work as regulators.
Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc
#5So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.
The FDA doesn't regulate cosmetics...
Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc
#6So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.
The FDA doesn't regulate cosmetics...
Sure they do.
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/fda...
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-compliance-enforceme...
> Section 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to conduct inspections of cosmetic firms at reasonable times, in a reasonable manner, and without prior notice in order to assure compliance with the applicable laws and regulations, to determine whether cosmetics are safe and properly labeled, and to identify possible health risks and other violations of the law.
Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc
#7So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.
So common that Economists have invented a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc
#8So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.
Don't leave out the step where you hire a bunch of politicians/friends/relatives to your board and send some of your execs to work as regulators.
Yup, looks like a classic case of regulatory capture.
Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc
#9So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.
The FDA doesn't regulate cosmetics...
The thing they don't regulate is vitamins, supplements etc. Interestingly those things can be just as potent as "real drugs", but they aren't regulated simply because the seller opted to not say they are drugs, rather on any theory that they're not actually drugs.
Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc
#10It was over seventy years, after it was decided lead in fuel was a bad idea, before it was banned in road-going vehicles. [0] Keep that in mind when some politician or business owner goes on about "bureaucrats". Because "bureaucrats" to them means "someone who stands between me and more profits". "Bureaucrats" to you should mean "people that make sure this shit gets enforced".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Controversy_and...