26 ms·
Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder
- minikites 8y ago>The documents also depict successful efforts to influence U.S. regulators’ plans to limit asbestos in cosmetic talc products and scientific research on the health effects of talc. Yet another example proving that no corporation considers the interests of the public in any way. I'm baffled that anyone can argue for unfettered free market capitalism with such a bevy of evidence against it.
- tzakrajs 8y agoPerforming cost-benefit analysis is enhanced when you mention the benefits resulting from the cost -- otherwise you just get down voted.
- 0x8BADF00D 8y agoNot sure what is meant by your last sentence. Consumers will obviously avoid J&J baby powder products and switch to a competitor’s baby powder product.
- belltaco 8y agoConsumers didn't know it for four decades.
- quickthrower2 8y agoWhich definitely won’t have asbestos?
- smt88 8y agoI think GP meant that free-market solutions to corporate malfeasance are very slow and leave many dead people in their wake. Sometimes they never happen at all, at least not without government intervention.
- CptFribble 8y agoIf the report is accurate, then how can consumers know in time to avoid dangerous health effects? A sample timeline: 1: J&J discovers asbestos in talc products 2: J&J covers it up 3: Consumers, none the wiser, continue using talc products 4: X consumers contract cancer and die too early, fracturing families and causing unknowable amounts of economic damage in the form of lost productivity 5: Decades later, Reuters publishes report 6: Consumers avoid J&J talc products, shareholders lose some money, possible lawsuits I call your attention to step 4. If the consumers don't know that a product they're using is damaging them irreversibly, how can they make an informed choice? Is dying a fair cost to inform others about the danger of a product you're using? Is loss of market value, lawsuit settlements, and regulatory fines a fair consequence for the person who is no longer living? If a company can cover up health effects, let a bunch of people die, deny everything, and eventually pay some money, is that the market working as intended? What about the people who are dead now, is that money helpful for them? I don't think we can ever fully trust "the market" to prevent this kind of thing from happening, because companies have no reason to ever admit to wrongdoing that will affect their bottom line, even if lives have been lost. The only time a company will admit wrongdoing, is when the cost of dealing with it publicly is less than the cost of covering it up and possible future liability. Case-in-point: https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/ https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-b... We could have laws that require compounds created to be used by non-expert end-users, whether for food, topical application, or otherwise, to be tested extensively for long-term health effects before they can be sold. This would be a cost to the manufacturers, but what is the value of a life? How much profit would you allow a company to save in order to kill you with a tainted product?
- shkkmo 8y ago> Yet another example proving that no corporation considers the interests of the public in any way. This statement sort of clearly false and hyperbolic. Why would you make it? > I'm baffled that anyone can argue for unfettered free market capitalism with such a bevy of evidence against it. This is a pretty clear sign to me that you don't understand the argument in question. If you can't understand a position well enough to see why someone would support it, then you don't understand the position well enough to reject it.
- minikites 8y ago>This statement sort of clearly false and hyperbolic. Why would you make it? Name a publicly traded for-profit corporation that exists to serve the public. At best it's a disregard for the public. You can see it in non-political stories on HN. What percentage of companies have been meaningfully punished by a data breach? >This is a pretty clear sign to me that you don't understand the argument in question. I very specifically meant "unfettered free market capitalism" and I could have been more clear. It's the end result of many more popular policies seeking to strip regulations for the sake of making things "more efficient". The fight is obviously about the extent of regulatory removal but "removal of all regulations" is an idea seriously proposed by many. I don't see how our current system needs fewer regulations, especially at a time when corporations are growing through mergers and acquisitions, data is collected and shared more widely, and therefore fewer companies have the ability to affect more individuals. Look at a sibling comment to yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18685351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18685351 >Consumers will obviously avoid J&J baby powder products and switch to a competitor’s baby powder product. This is exactly the sort of case where the "invisible hand" has failed. Sometimes it's invisible because it's not there.
- sbov 8y agoNor regulators, apparently, which is why at least some on the right oppose them.
- agumonkey 8y agoI've been thinking for long that the company / regulator / public cycle is way too elongated. Too much opportunities for lies and too much delay for public to detect, report and solve problems.
- lixtra 8y agoJ&J responds [1]: > The Reuters article is one-sided, false and inflammatory. > The article ignores that thousands of tests by J&J, regulators, leading independent labs, and academic institutions have repeatedly shown that our talc does not contain asbestos. [1] https://www.jnj.com/our-company/johnson-johnson-issues-statement-on-reuters-talc-article https://www.jnj.com/our-company/johnson-johnson-issues-state...
- iscrewyou 8y agoWhat a short response, all the while not citing any sources to their claims.
- Isamu 8y agoIn fact they link to a whole website that discusses studies: http://www.factsabouttalc.com/#section-safety http://www.factsabouttalc.com/#section-safety [edit] I think the original reply is pretty to the point: >J&J attorneys provided Reuters with hundreds of documents and directly responded to dozens of questions in order to correct misinformation and falsehoods. Notwithstanding this, Reuters repeatedly refused to meet with our representatives to review the facts and refused to incorporate much of the material we provided them. >The Reuters article is wrong in three key areas: >The article ignores that thousands of tests by J&J, regulators, leading independent labs, and academic institutions have repeatedly shown that our talc does not contain asbestos. >The article ignores that J&J has cooperated fully and openly with the U.S. FDA and other global regulators, providing them with all the information they requested over decades. We have also made our cosmetic talc mines and processed talc available to regulators for testing. Regulators have tested both, and they have always found our talc to be asbestos-free. >The article ignores that J&J has always used the most advanced testing methods available to confirm that our cosmetic talc does not contain asbestos. Every method available to test J&J’s talc for asbestos has been used by J&J, regulators, or independent experts, and all of these methods have all found that our cosmetic talc is asbestos-free.
- noja 8y ago> that our cosmetic talc Strange word there, what other types of talc do they make?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Aloha 8y agoAs far as I know, Asbestos is only harmful when inhaled, no?
- tekno45 8y agoBaby powder is in the air pretty often with a baby in the house.
- astura 8y agoSome adults use baby power too, sometimes every day.
- agumonkey 8y agoyeah, every baby caring employee (nursery, kindergarten even) might accumulate risks over their career..
- astura 8y agoI mean, I know adults who use it on themselves regularly, It's not just a risk for people who care for children. They use it reduce moisture in various areas (genital and anal region, feet, between thighs, under boobs, etc.) A lot of women are taught to sprinkle it on their underwear ever day to "stay fresh."[1] [1] https://www.thecut.com/2016/04/sad-truth-behind-the-baby-powder-ovarian-cancer-lawsuits.html https://www.thecut.com/2016/04/sad-truth-behind-the-baby-pow...
- lixtra 8y agoAccording to the Reuters article some lawyers claim > that asbestos causes mesothelioma and is associated with ovarian and other cancer
- mr_toad 8y ago> is associated with Standard newspaper jargon. There’s no proof, but it’ll sell copy anyway.
- jasonkolb 8y agoMy dad used baby powder as deodorant because he had sensitive skin. Died of lung cancer at age 58, and never smoked. Anecdotal, but this really pisses me off.
- refurb 8y agoDid he have the type of lung cancer that is common with asbestos exposure? People get lung cancer all the time having never smoked.
- smt88 8y agoLess than 15% of lung cancers occur in people who haven't smoked. A lot of the rest of the risk is radon. It's not unreasonable to think there might be a connection.
- assblaster 8y agoAsbestos is linked more with mesothelioma.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- refurb 8y agoAs others have mentioned asbestos increases the risk of a very specific type of lung cancer. People don’t seem to realize that there isn’t a cause for every case of cancer. Sometimes you just get cancer even having never been exposed to any risk factors.
- cloverich 8y agoThe cancer most associated with asbestos (mesothelioma) is not actually the most common type it causes (bronchogenic carcinoma). EDIT: Removed my qualifier as this directly refutes several child comments.
- nradov 8y ago
- rmm 8y agoAren’t lots of street narcotics “cut” with talcum powder? I wonder if any studies show any correlation of mesothelioma and drug use...
- Havoc 8y agoIf you're taking street narcotics I think cancer risk is the least of your worries
- jMyles 8y ago> If you're taking street narcotics I think cancer risk is the least of your worries "least of your worries" is obviously an exaggeration. While it's true that overdose deaths (attributable in my assessment mostly to bad public policy) have become a leading cause of death, cancer isn't actually far behind. Overdose deaths (recorded by the CDC as "Poisoning" and classified under "Unintentional Injury" [0]) is the number one cause of death for Americans of both the age group 25-34 and 35-44, but cancer (recorded as "malignant neoplasms") is number four and number two, respectively. So, if you're in the age group most likely to die from an overdose, then cancer is either the fourth or the second of your worries - far from the least. 0: https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcause.html https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcause.html
- ComputerGuru 8y ago> So, if you're in the age group most likely to die from an overdose, then cancer is either the fourth or the second of your worries - far from the least. Why did you decide to collate by age? It's a non-sequitur.
- jMyles 8y agoI presumed that GP's comment, by using the phrase "least of your worries", was a reference to overdose deaths being a more serious concern. So I selected the two age groups in the WISQARS data in which overdose is the most likely cause of death.
- 8y ago
- wnevets 8y agobut at least the shareholders got to make tons of money tho, right?
- p1esk 8y agonot today!
- askaboutit 8y agoJail time for a small amount of weed. Payouts and bonuses for killing people in the name of money. America.
- trophycase 8y ago3 years for illegally helping elect someone who will be the most powerful individual in the country for 3 years or more. Are we really surprised?
- cheez 8y agoOh boy...
- matt4077 8y agoWell, the consequences of this aren't really known yet, so let's be slightly more careful with the cynicism... I'll also add that you would usually want this to be a civil matter. First, because the standard of proof is far lower ("preponderance of evidence" vs "beyond reasonable doubt", i. e. 50% vs, say, 95%), making actual consequences far more likely. Secondly, you are more likely to get whistleblowers if you focus on punishing organisations and not individuals. Thirdly, these really are, almost always, actions by organisations undertaken in a sort of collective delusion, where everyone believes their actions are ok because they see so many others participating in it. None of these people would ever murder someone outright. That they happily do so as a group, thousand times over, needs to inform our reaction: it is a systemic failure, a group dynamic gone awry. Treating it as anything else only diminishes our chances to prevent future cases.
- FatDrunknStupid 8y agoSheeples. They are the true problem. Without the flock this would be impossible. I was marched out by a guy with a machine gun from my last job.
- fzeroracer 8y agoThis is one of the biggest issues with unfettered free market capitalism in that long-term issues are incredibly hard to balance out and relatively easy to cover up. By the time people figure out what it is that might be killing them there's little recourse or the damage is already done. Eventually the free market might kick in and result in companies like J&J being torn apart. Yet are we really willing to repeat the cycle of a shitty company hiding things that are harmful to the public under the guise of a free market? A free market can only theoretically work when consumers have full access to information that allows them to make rational decisions about what they chose to buy; companies hiding information like that very obviously goes against that core concept.
- shkkmo 8y agoIn what way is that the result of free market capitalism in particular? It sounds to me like a basic problem with freedom of action and human nature in a world of imperfect information. It is hard to regulate deleterious behavior when it only has long term bad effects, especially when those effects are indirect and statistical. This is not to excuse any immorality or lack of ethics on the part of J&J executives. My point is just that preventing these types of abuses is a hard problem to solve regardless of economic system.
- fzeroracer 8y agoIt's a harder problem to solve because free market capitalism incentivizes lying to the consumer and hiding facts, especially for things that occur over the extremely long term. Short-term profits are far more valued than maintaining public health or ensuring that their actions don't have any negative consequences in the future. Even if a company lasts to see said consequences, the people in charge at the time end up getting away richer. It's easier to regulate behavior when you don't reward executives and businesses who use immoral behavior to increase profits.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 8y ago
- horizontaltonto 8y agoTylenol 1982? J&J pulled every bottle off of every shelf from every retailer, imagine what the cost was. Sure management may not be the same today as it was back then, but you dont get to the position they're in by simply looking the other way
- DenisM 8y agoGood point. http://time.com/3423136/tylenol-deaths-1982/ http://time.com/3423136/tylenol-deaths-1982/
- mikeyouse 8y agoIt's funny -- That J&J case is taught almost universally in ethics and business courses because it was so clearly the right thing to do, the company did so at great expense, and engendered so much good will. Then it turns out during the same period they were actively misleading about the problematic nature of their talc. Since then, they've had several other scandals including bribing doctors all over Europe[1], were successfully sued over defective transplants that they knew about[2], shipped a poorly tested and dangerous vaginal mesh that also got them sued[3], among other just awful actions. It's looking more and more like they stumbled onto the correct course with the Tylenol episode and shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt for anything else. [1] - https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-87.htm https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-87.htm [2] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-verdict/johnson-johnson-hit-with-247-million-verdict-in-hip-implant-trial-idUSKBN1DG2MB https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-verdict/j... [3] - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/29/revealed-johnson-johnsons-irresponsible-actions-over-vaginal-mesh-implant https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/29/revealed-joh...
- agumonkey 8y agoI just learned about J&J through an XBOX history video. Microsoft said the failing rate was a tylenol moment for the xbox project. And now J&J fails to honor their past. Weird.
- 8y ago
- WheelsAtLarge 8y agoIt's sad that I'm not surprised that a company would put profit over life. I'm saddened by the fact but not surprised. What really gets me is that baby powder is marketed towards young mothers and babies. That's a hardcore attitude towards money over life. How can they ever defend that?
- duncan-donuts 8y agoThere’s absolutely no way to justify or defend it. Makes you wonder what types of shit go on every day that we’re not aware we’re exposed to.
- gammateam 8y agoYou’ll find out in some college kid’s Netflix documentary in 2050
- robertAngst 8y ago>How can they ever defend that? So you didn't read the article? They didn't mention deliberately shipping products with asbestos, but rather than even with their testing, they could not find/remove the trace amounts. It's sad that I'm not surprised that a HN user would go for low hanging anti-coporate karma over real discussion.
- na85 8y agoThe anti-corporate attitude is a natural consequence of the pervasive culture of CEO hero-worship among a great deal of HN commenters. It's counterculture.
- DonHopkins 8y agoI'm sure all that attitude has nothing to do with the fact that corporations do bad things.
- crooked-v 8y agoThirty years of actively hiding the ongoing problem from the public is more than enough to count as "deliberate".
- itronitron 8y agoparents shouldn't be using baby powder on their infants anyway, there are safer alternatives and most pediatric or obgyn nurses would be able to recommend them.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- perpetualcrayon 8y agoIf the economic model was different they might have spoken up. I think it might be worthwhile, in this case, to examine / contrast what a socialist society might do vs a capitalistic society. EDIT: I'm in no way inferring this is a black and white issue. But I do think it's a worthwhile experiment for the mind.
- throwaway_98554 8y agoThefts, lies, frauds can and do happen everywhere. People follow incentives. If they can get away with it, many will do it. Be it investors trying to cash out with an IPO, or administrators of a government program. The question is, what do you once you find out these people? To the gallows? Allow the blame to fall on the inevitable scapegoats? Inconsequential fine?
- jacobwilliamroy 8y agoI feel uncomfortable when I read stories like this: the kind of stories where large groups of otherwise reasonable individuals collectively decide to secretly expose thousands (low-balling) of people to asbestos. Events like this pop up everywhere in the world and everywhen in recorded history. The frequency leads me to believe that my current self and my hypothetical, killer J&J executive self are the same or very similar; differing only in circumstances, rather than character. I revisit this train of thought fairly often. I think it would do a lot of good to investigate what exactly happened to the people who are knowingly participating in this coverup. Maybe ask them if they would like help in their personal lives? Maybe some kind of welfare program where taxpayers subsidize their lifestyle and also pay for a counselor to help them figure out how to lead joyful, wonderful lives without killing the whole world? I'm just brain-storming from my armchair over here; A thorough investigation would probably yield better answers to the question of "How can I meet my needs if I admit that the company I work for sold asbestos to babies for decades without telling anyone?"
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- zerr 8y agoWhat about other baby powder brands?