4 ms·

Did you read the entire article? The FDA was guided by J&J to set the standard at 10x higher than their original proposal, and to reduce testing to an inexpensi

Did you read the entire article? The FDA was guided by J&J to set the standard at 10x higher than their original proposal, and to reduce testing to an inexpensive test that only detects the least common type of asbestos. Basically, the article contends, the standard that "everybody knew" about is meaningless and was not much more than positive press for J&J.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
...and is the health issue of talcum powder real? Is that standard wrong? Is it's risk above the environmental noise level of cancer-causing substances? Anything else is not much more than ragging on J&J.
maxlybbert 8y ago
The solution to regulatory capture isn’t “create more regulations.”