Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#81

Post by tartoran »

asdf21 wrote: post #64
davidhyde wrote: post #2

So 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.

Right, so government cannot be trusted to enforce consumer protections and it needs to be privatized.

I can't hear anything about lobbying that is bad, I'm joking of course. Privatizing the government and all public agencies is they're after.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#82

Post by tolstoshev »

"Eleven days later, the company announced that tests by labs it hired had determined that there was no asbestos–other than some contamination it said came from an air conditioner – in samples from the one bottle tested by the FDA and the batch it came from."

Why the hell is there an AC system that is spewing out asbestos particles?

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#83

Post by thfuran »

chcknsammich wrote: post #41
davidhyde wrote: post #2

So 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 real root of the problem is probably that the FDA is also a monopoly.

The real root of the problem is that there are so many products under its purview that the FDA cannot possibly thoroughly vet them all. Doing serious, in-depth, independent analysis of every product would be fantastically expensive. So instead, the FDA and other agencies (like the FAA) establish standards for the processes manufacturers must follow and they primarily audit the processes rather than the products themselves.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#84

Post by Roboprog »

tolstoshev wrote: post #82

"Eleven days later, the company announced that tests by labs it hired had determined that there was no asbestos–other than some contamination it said came from an air conditioner – in samples from the one bottle tested by the FDA and the batch it came from." Why the hell is there an AC system that is spewing out asbestos particles?

1970s? Lucky if the ceiling wasn’t coated with the stuff, in fairness.

Quantities / concentrations not specified in the article that I saw at a skim. Both sides talking past the other, sadly.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#85

Post by Roboprog »

gwern wrote: post #44
ksec wrote: post #42

So are those Johnson and Johnson Baby powder actually safe? I remember reading J&J said only a batch in some years contains ultra small amount of some substance and less than certain % of it is safe.

One has to wonder about a lengthy article which refuses to cite any numbers and instead repeats endlessly that 'no level is known to be safe', which is irrelevant.

I wondered that as well. 0 tolerance means our entire planet should be condemned as uninhabitable, then. Clearly there must be some level of parts per 10 to the N that is no more dangerous than a walk on the beach.

300 parts per million is probably bad. 1 part per trillion is probably cleaner than a random meadow.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#86

Post by tehwebguy »

markdown wrote: post #60
dboreham wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not to worry, those are regulated by the banks, who won't provide financial services to any business selling anything that they think mimics illegal drugs.

They are talking about "supplements"

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#87

Post by [deleted] »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #63
openasocket wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with the sentiment, keep in mind it's a little more complicated than that. People who work on some category of regulations can only find relevant work in the government or in that sector of industry. Making it impossible to move from the government to an industry job effectively traps people for life in their one job unless they change careers. As a concrete example, my fiance is a lawyer working in env…

There exist tertiary jobs that employ the same skillsets without the danger of pervasive incentives. No one minds if a EPA regulator that does agriculture cases his whole career then take a lawyer job in the fishing or mining industry. It's when that person drops immediately into a legal career at Monsanto that people start seeing a conflict of interests.

[deleted]

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#88

Post by HeWhoLurksLate »

markdown wrote: post #60
dboreham wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not to worry, those are regulated by the banks, who won't provide financial services to any business selling anything that they think mimics illegal drugs.

* who will stop providing financial services (because the make money off those, duh) once cornered by a higher authority.

FTFY

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#89

Post by rootusrootus »

mark-r wrote: post #45
ksec wrote: post #42

So are those Johnson and Johnson Baby powder actually safe? I remember reading J&J said only a batch in some years contains ultra small amount of some substance and less than certain % of it is safe.

I thought they switched the baby powder formula from Talc to Cornstarch many years ago. Maybe I'm mistaken?

Cornstarch works for some people, but many of us prefer talc. You can buy either one, they should be clearly marked.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#90

Post by rootusrootus »

dekalbcountyman wrote: post #33

so stop putting baby powder on my nuts during the summer? :(

Go right ahead. The link between talc and any kind of harm is limited (and it's asbestos contamination that is the actual culprit, talc itself is fine), and what evidence there is only links to ovarian cancer. Given how many decades people have been powdering their nether regions with talc, I'd find something else to worry about.
Post reply on HN