13 ms·

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 les

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't help but think I'll be avoiding J&J and all their subsidiary brands actively from here on out. At very least, their quality control for one of the biggest manufacturers on earth is awful. 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/health/baby-powder-cancer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/health/baby-powder-cancer... 2. https://www.barrons.com/articles/johnson-johnson-stock-pipeline-cancer-drugs-51621521358 https://www.barrons.com/articles/johnson-johnson-stock-pipel...

leesalminen 5y ago
Makes you wonder what else J&J could be doing to other products they manufacture.
buovjaga 5y ago
All around classy company: https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/ https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas... Quote from the article: “Oh, they’ve already reserved for that stuff,” one of them told me during a coffee break. He meant that in Johnson & Johnson’s financials, there had been money taken from earnings and put into a column vaguely called “accrued liabilities,” in order to account for the expected billions that might still have to be paid out in verdicts or settlements. -------- I wonder how their accrued liabilities column looks like for the sunscreen products.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  They will settle for 50 million. And sure, that's a lot of money, but not to them, not really. We started a rainy-day fund just for this occasion. The fund itself has already made five times that amount.
- infogulch 5y ago
  If anybody ever wondered, this is a concrete example of what it looks like when a company treats its negative externalities as a "cost of doing business".
  - gameswithgo 5y ago
    That is sort of an inevitable human behavior, you just have to make the cost high enough.
    - loceng 5y ago
      And continue the liability to include the chains of command during the times of malpractice.
  - abfan1127 5y ago
    this is interesting. Given the biodiversity of human beings, it should be safe to say that any product may have negative consequences at scale. Certainly the HN crowd can appreciate what it means to work at scale. The fact that J&J knows these consequences exist and plans for them makes them evil? If your company planned on extra engineering resources strictly to assist launch issues, is that evil? Evil comes from them knowing issues and shipping anyways (see the opioid crisis). Being prepared for adverse outcomes is just common sense.
    - romseb 5y ago
      There are benzene-free sunscreen products on the market and J&J could sell such products, but instead they decide not to in order to make more profit.
      - abfan1127 5y ago
        why would they add benzene to products? how does adding it make it cheaper to increase profits? Its not like some shady benzene dealer pays J&J to sprinkle it in, but only at really low levels (2-6 ppm). Its not like they chose benzene as an active ingredient over zinc oxide. Engineers are asked all the time on ways to save money. Did they skip a processing step? is their process control not optimized? Of course they are pressured to improve. Lower costs drive down consumer prices and increase profits (thanks 401k). https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/92799 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9279...
- The_Beta 5y ago
  This is standard accounting principles. GAAP/IFRS accounting require you to do this. It's not malicious
- intricatedetail 5y ago
  If penalty can be labelled as a cost of doing business, is it really a penalty?
TheManInThePub 5y ago
> Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders I asked this question in another post and did not get a reply. The US links sited state no evidence for talc causing cancer. A search of the NHS website also suggests no clear evidence [1]. Cancer Research (a respected UK charity) give a layman's summary (albeit focusing on ovarian cancer), stating no clear evidence and pointing out that there are far more serious risks to worry about [2]. Given the above, what is the hype about? Is this because the US is so insanely litigious? [1] https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?om=[{%22ety%22:[%22Information%20for%20the%20Public%22]}]&q=talcum+powder+cancer&sp=on https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?om=[{%22ety%22:[%22Inform... [2] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/cosmetics-and-toiletries https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc... EDIT: Down votes for asking a genuine question? Shame on you.
- pkaye 5y ago
  Talc comes from the ground so sometimes there are veins of asbestos deposits interspersed. I think they screen out those sections with high asbestos contents but it might not be perfect enough so there might be trace contents.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  I see people started downvoting this, if you do, please explain why.
  - dqv 5y ago
    You have got to give people more than 6 minutes to respond with a counter-argument, especially if you want a thoughtful answer.
  - jacksnipe 5y ago
    Because J&J didn't get in trouble for talc being carcinogenic. J&J got in trouble for their talc being contaminated with asbestos, which is definitely carcinogenic.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
chmod600 5y ago
I didn't find neutrogena in the original article or either of your links. Where does it say that's high in benzene?
- hristov 5y ago
  The original article has a link to a petition the lab is making to the government. There they show a table of sunscreens sorted by concentration of benzene. Most of the top 20 entries are nutrogena.
  - notacoward 5y ago
    I think that's a bit misleading. The clearest pattern I see in that data is that sprays are particularly bad. The top of the list is dominated by them, out of all proportion to their prevalence in the market overall. Any manufacturer who makes a lot of different products, and particularly spray products, is likely to have some entries on that list. Indeed, if you look at Appendix A (the "not detected" list) you'll find a ton of other products from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, and all the other big players. And a much lower percentage of sprays. Without adjusting for the number of products a vendor makes, and how closely they're related (e.g. 70SPF vs. 50SPF versions of the same thing), you're going to get the wrong idea of who the "bad guys" are. For example, "Fruit of the Earth" has only one product on either list, and it's on the bad one. Would you buy their product over a Neutrogena gel or lotion?
    - noodlenotes 5y ago
      Some of the products aren't even sunscreens, like "After-sun Aloe Vera Soothing Spray".
    - mr_toad 5y ago
      If they use a hydrocarbon propellant it’s not unlikely that it would contain some benzene. You could probably find some in many spray cans. The EPA recommends avoiding aerosols if possible. One of the down sides of moving away from CFCs is that some of the other chemicals used have their own problems.
nashashmi 5y ago
JnJ tries to label each product differently so that bad name from one does not affect the name of the other. Such as in the case of Tylenol recall. How do you know that other product lines are not affected by one raw supplier. Maybe there was some pollutant in a supply of product A that lots of companies use and put in their own products. They would also be affected.
omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
From what I've seen, it's not that uncommon (eg the GM street car consipiracy). Companies aren't as overt as they used to be, but I think they still do it. One example I'm curious about is investment firms ownership in US car companies prior to the spike in oil prices and great recession.
- ChickeNES 5y ago
  > From what I've seen, it's not that uncommon (eg the GM street car consipiracy). And much like the GM street car conspiracy it's just that, a conspiracy theory: https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-streetcar-conspiracy-theory-general-motors https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-streetc...
JoeyBananas 5y ago
I'm sure glad I took that Johnson and Johnson vaccine
dzhiurgis 5y ago
Ironically Neutrogena received best rating when measuring their SPF (according to Consumer NZ). It’s my favourite too as it actually works, while zinc ones my partner touts are pain to apply and don’t really work that well in extreme sun. From my previous research the benzene is confused with sodium benzene which is safe and widespread. Perhaps manufacture of it leave some trace.
- jbay808 5y ago
  Did you perhaps mean sodium benzoate? I've never heard of sodium benzene and it sounds highly unstable. I'd be surprised if their detector confused sodium benzoate for benzene, because sodium benzoate is so common that that would make it a pretty useless detector!

leesalminen 5y ago

Makes you wonder what else J&J could be doing to other products they manufacture.

buovjaga 5y ago

All around classy company: https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/ https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas... Quote from the article: “Oh, they’ve already reserved for that stuff,” one of them told me during a coffee break. He meant that in Johnson & Johnson’s financials, there had been money taken from earnings and put into a column vaguely called “accrued liabilities,” in order to account for the expected billions that might still have to be paid out in verdicts or settlements. -------- I wonder how their accrued liabilities column looks like for the sunscreen products.

formerly_proven 5y ago
They will settle for 50 million. And sure, that's a lot of money, but not to them, not really. We started a rainy-day fund just for this occasion. The fund itself has already made five times that amount.
infogulch 5y ago
If anybody ever wondered, this is a concrete example of what it looks like when a company treats its negative externalities as a "cost of doing business".
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  That is sort of an inevitable human behavior, you just have to make the cost high enough.
  - loceng 5y ago
    And continue the liability to include the chains of command during the times of malpractice.
- abfan1127 5y ago
  this is interesting. Given the biodiversity of human beings, it should be safe to say that any product may have negative consequences at scale. Certainly the HN crowd can appreciate what it means to work at scale. The fact that J&J knows these consequences exist and plans for them makes them evil? If your company planned on extra engineering resources strictly to assist launch issues, is that evil? Evil comes from them knowing issues and shipping anyways (see the opioid crisis). Being prepared for adverse outcomes is just common sense.
  - romseb 5y ago
    There are benzene-free sunscreen products on the market and J&J could sell such products, but instead they decide not to in order to make more profit.
    - abfan1127 5y ago
      why would they add benzene to products? how does adding it make it cheaper to increase profits? Its not like some shady benzene dealer pays J&J to sprinkle it in, but only at really low levels (2-6 ppm). Its not like they chose benzene as an active ingredient over zinc oxide. Engineers are asked all the time on ways to save money. Did they skip a processing step? is their process control not optimized? Of course they are pressured to improve. Lower costs drive down consumer prices and increase profits (thanks 401k). https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/92799 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9279...
The_Beta 5y ago
This is standard accounting principles. GAAP/IFRS accounting require you to do this. It's not malicious
intricatedetail 5y ago
If penalty can be labelled as a cost of doing business, is it really a penalty?

TheManInThePub 5y ago

> Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders I asked this question in another post and did not get a reply. The US links sited state no evidence for talc causing cancer. A search of the NHS website also suggests no clear evidence [1]. Cancer Research (a respected UK charity) give a layman's summary (albeit focusing on ovarian cancer), stating no clear evidence and pointing out that there are far more serious risks to worry about [2]. Given the above, what is the hype about? Is this because the US is so insanely litigious? [1] https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?om=[{%22ety%22:[%22Information%20for%20the%20Public%22]}]&q=talcum+powder+cancer&sp=on https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?om=[{%22ety%22:[%22Inform... [2] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/cosmetics-and-toiletries https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc... EDIT: Down votes for asking a genuine question? Shame on you.

pkaye 5y ago
Talc comes from the ground so sometimes there are veins of asbestos deposits interspersed. I think they screen out those sections with high asbestos contents but it might not be perfect enough so there might be trace contents.
gameswithgo 5y ago
I see people started downvoting this, if you do, please explain why.
- dqv 5y ago
  You have got to give people more than 6 minutes to respond with a counter-argument, especially if you want a thoughtful answer.
- jacksnipe 5y ago
  Because J&J didn't get in trouble for talc being carcinogenic. J&J got in trouble for their talc being contaminated with asbestos, which is definitely carcinogenic.
ceejayoz 5y ago

chmod600 5y ago

I didn't find neutrogena in the original article or either of your links. Where does it say that's high in benzene?

hristov 5y ago
The original article has a link to a petition the lab is making to the government. There they show a table of sunscreens sorted by concentration of benzene. Most of the top 20 entries are nutrogena.
- notacoward 5y ago
  I think that's a bit misleading. The clearest pattern I see in that data is that sprays are particularly bad. The top of the list is dominated by them, out of all proportion to their prevalence in the market overall. Any manufacturer who makes a lot of different products, and particularly spray products, is likely to have some entries on that list. Indeed, if you look at Appendix A (the "not detected" list) you'll find a ton of other products from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, and all the other big players. And a much lower percentage of sprays. Without adjusting for the number of products a vendor makes, and how closely they're related (e.g. 70SPF vs. 50SPF versions of the same thing), you're going to get the wrong idea of who the "bad guys" are. For example, "Fruit of the Earth" has only one product on either list, and it's on the bad one. Would you buy their product over a Neutrogena gel or lotion?
  - noodlenotes 5y ago
    Some of the products aren't even sunscreens, like "After-sun Aloe Vera Soothing Spray".
  - mr_toad 5y ago
    If they use a hydrocarbon propellant it’s not unlikely that it would contain some benzene. You could probably find some in many spray cans. The EPA recommends avoiding aerosols if possible. One of the down sides of moving away from CFCs is that some of the other chemicals used have their own problems.

nashashmi 5y ago

JnJ tries to label each product differently so that bad name from one does not affect the name of the other. Such as in the case of Tylenol recall. How do you know that other product lines are not affected by one raw supplier. Maybe there was some pollutant in a supply of product A that lots of companies use and put in their own products. They would also be affected.

omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago

From what I've seen, it's not that uncommon (eg the GM street car consipiracy). Companies aren't as overt as they used to be, but I think they still do it. One example I'm curious about is investment firms ownership in US car companies prior to the spike in oil prices and great recession.

ChickeNES 5y ago
> From what I've seen, it's not that uncommon (eg the GM street car consipiracy). And much like the GM street car conspiracy it's just that, a conspiracy theory: https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-streetcar-conspiracy-theory-general-motors https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-streetc...

JoeyBananas 5y ago

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

dzhiurgis 5y ago

Ironically Neutrogena received best rating when measuring their SPF (according to Consumer NZ). It’s my favourite too as it actually works, while zinc ones my partner touts are pain to apply and don’t really work that well in extreme sun. From my previous research the benzene is confused with sodium benzene which is safe and widespread. Perhaps manufacture of it leave some trace.

jbay808 5y ago
Did you perhaps mean sodium benzoate? I've never heard of sodium benzene and it sounds highly unstable. I'd be surprised if their detector confused sodium benzoate for benzene, because sodium benzoate is so common that that would make it a pretty useless detector!