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

Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

valisure.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 309 posts

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#181

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

TheManInThePub wrote: post #171
mikeyouse wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that asbestos causes mesothelioma and that J&J baby powders contained asbestos since talc/asbestos are often found together in mines. J&J knew for decades that they were shipping asbestos to consumers in a powder form that's regularly inhaled -- they ghost-wrote and sponsored studies to deny that asbestos existed in their products and lied to the FDA in their disclosures.. https://www.reuters.com/investigates…

> It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer. So no evidence, just suspicion? I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have. EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?

The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer, and multiple executives at Johnson and Johnson knew, and people who used it got cancer. I'm not sure how you could believe the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#182

Post by ceejayoz »

seiferteric wrote: post #167
linuxftw wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's enough to put people to death, so it should be enough for everything else.

At least that requires unanimous decisions vs civil cases where it just has to be the majority.

The legal standard for a conviction/judgement also changes, from "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal to "preponderance of the evidence" in civil- i.e. 99.9% certainty becomes 51% certainty.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#183

Post by contrahax »

TheManInThePub wrote: post #171
mikeyouse wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that asbestos causes mesothelioma and that J&J baby powders contained asbestos since talc/asbestos are often found together in mines. J&J knew for decades that they were shipping asbestos to consumers in a powder form that's regularly inhaled -- they ghost-wrote and sponsored studies to deny that asbestos existed in their products and lied to the FDA in their disclosures.. https://www.reuters.com/investigates…

> It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer. So no evidence, just suspicion? I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have. EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?

The information in the article posted by the person you're responding to answers your questions - J&J knew their product had high levels of asbestos and hid it from regulators while doing nothing about it. There absolutely was evidence of this, if you would read any of the information posted above. If I sold you a bottle of water with enough asbestos in it to give you cancer, knew about it, and didn't tell you: that would be illegal - it is pretty straightforward.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#184

Post by foerbert »

TheManInThePub wrote: post #171
mikeyouse wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that asbestos causes mesothelioma and that J&J baby powders contained asbestos since talc/asbestos are often found together in mines. J&J knew for decades that they were shipping asbestos to consumers in a powder form that's regularly inhaled -- they ghost-wrote and sponsored studies to deny that asbestos existed in their products and lied to the FDA in their disclosures.. https://www.reuters.com/investigates…

> It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer. So no evidence, just suspicion? I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have. EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?

Can't even downvote myself, but my guess is that it's related to the extremity of your position. It sounds a lot like you're saying since we know cyanide is poisonous by itself, it's very strange to be able to win a lawsuit if you find significant amounts of cyanide in your bread. Most bread is fine, right? So merely finding cyanide in it should only count as suspicion of a problem and not count as evidence... seems to be what you're saying.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#185

Post by njovin »

TheManInThePub wrote: post #171
mikeyouse wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that asbestos causes mesothelioma and that J&J baby powders contained asbestos since talc/asbestos are often found together in mines. J&J knew for decades that they were shipping asbestos to consumers in a powder form that's regularly inhaled -- they ghost-wrote and sponsored studies to deny that asbestos existed in their products and lied to the FDA in their disclosures.. https://www.reuters.com/investigates…

> It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer. So no evidence, just suspicion? I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have. EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?

From the parent comment's link:

> A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public.

I think you're being downvoted for not RTFA, not for asking a question.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#186

Post by s0rce »

p49k wrote: post #56
jeffbee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet if you wait a month, you would get different results. These brands are just brands, they buy product in bulk from manufacturers you've never heard of and stick it in a bottle with a lot of words on it to try to pretend like their product is differentiated.

This might be true at the very low end of the market, but most sunscreen brands that people care about enough to have loyalty are uniquely sourced products.

They aren't using benzene intentionally as an ingredient. So even if they aren't just reselling a generic product this is likely an impurity in one of the ingredients. It doesn't really matter if its a white label or if its custom manufactured for the big brand. In the end it could still vary next month if the source materials are not sufficiently controlled. Although it could be the same if the process results in consistent levels of impurities.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#187

Post by minikites »

It seems to me that it's been proven over and over again that market pressure has insufficient power to ensure consumer safety or product efficacy. That argument is often a tactic to blame the victim for corporate malfeasance or carelessness. For example, you should actually look up what happened to the woman who spilled McDonalds coffee on her lap instead of believing all of the '90s sitcom jokes about it.

A powerful government is needed to check the power of corporations and there need to be consequences for the corporation and its leaders which cause actual harm, so they don't just treat it as another cost to their business.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#188

Post by JoeyBananas »

erulabs wrote: post #28

Neutrogena is owned by Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders [1]. Combined with Neutrogena being more or less _very high_ in benezine content and J&J having a very deep suite of cancer treatment drugs [2]... This seems like a horrific story of a self-fulfilling product pipeline. I know they're a giant organization and suggesting conspiracy is a bit insane but I can'…

I'm sure glad I took that Johnson and Johnson vaccine

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#189

Post by axolotlgod »

gwittel wrote: post #105
jpmattia wrote: post #21

My family recently went through the search for a decent sunscreen and settled on this link for useful info about which sunscreens have nasty chemicals: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/ Our search was not exhaustive (and I can't really vouch for the link that was used) so if you have a better link, please don't keep it a secret.

We went through a similar search recently. Part of the challenge is that the US rules are well behind Europe and Asia in terms of whats OK or not ingredient wise. With the new push toward reef friendly ingredients, it also complicates things. Physical barriers like Zinc generally offer reasonable UVB (this is the SPF rating) protection, but poor UVA (not sure there is a rating in US, but you'll see PA++++... on impor…

Just curious, what EU brand/brands did you end up going with? I couldn't find anything specific to that on the EWG website.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#190

Post by TheManInThePub »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #181
TheManInThePub wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer. So no evidence, just suspicion? I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have. EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?

The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer, and multiple executives at Johnson and Johnson knew, and people who used it got cancer. I'm not sure how you could believe the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.

Thank you for being the first person to post an informative reply rather than down voting a question. HN is turning into reddit.

> I'm not sure how you could believe

Though this is unnecessarily insulting.

> the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.

If the concentration was so low as to be negligible (as the links I have posted state) then why the successful litigation? This is the question I am asking!

> The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer,

This is the evidence I am asking for. The NHS and other respected UK bodies state differently. This seams to be a purely US issue and I am asking why.

Post reply on HN