
Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder - cwal37
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-cancer-special-report-idUSKBN1OD1RQ
======
WheelsAtLarge
It'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?

~~~
austincheney
> What really gets me is that baby powder is marketed towards young mothers
> and babies.

Why does that increase the significance of this issue?

~~~
ohyes
Culturally we value the women and children over men and older people.

This is likely due to the reproductive drive that makes babies cute and men
more expendable than women.

~~~
johnisgood
But people from the same culture insist on the existence of "systematic
sexism". Are they not mutually exclusive? I am genuinely interested in this. I
do not understand how you can believe that people value women more than men,
and at the same time say that there is "systematic sexism", "male oppression
(against women)", etc. And on top of that surprisingly it is only men who are
at fault, at least according to the people whom I have asked.

Please if you down-vote, do give me some sort of a feedback. It helps me learn
and it helps me to not make the same mistake twice. :)

~~~
forkLding
I think its more about trust and trust of products, historically we've
believed women and children to be weaker and more vulnerable as people which
is in turn why we depict them as so in sexist attacks: "Women are not good
enough" and men are depicted traditionally as "strong, tough and burly" which
I would say is also a wrong and stereotyped point making it harder for many
men who are not like that or might need a break but can't because they have to
maintain their "tough" image.

Thus Johnson & Johnson breaking that delicate trust over the issue of
vulnerable women and children shows them as profiting from the "weak" and
"precious" using products they knew were wrong. Society does not look well
upon harmful exploitation at the profit of a few but expense of many,
especially when you buy talc powder to use for children trusting that it won't
harm you.

------
jasonkolb
My 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.

~~~
nradov
Was your father's home and workplace ever tested for radon? It's the second
leading cause of lung cancer and a far bigger problem than asbestos.

[https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/s...](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-
prevention/risk/substances/radon/radon-fact-sheet#q4)

~~~
Lio
I couldn’t find much detail about the sources of home/office radon in the
linked site. Is it suspected to naturally occurring ie coming out of the
ground or from some product or chemical used?

~~~
CydeWeys
It rises up out of the ground, and the (expensive) solution is to install a
vacuum system beneath the slab that vents the the outside. I know because my
parents' house has such a system. More info: [https://sosradon.org/reducing-
radon-in-your-home](https://sosradon.org/reducing-radon-in-your-home)

You can tell it's working because there's a U-shaped pressure gauge attached
to the system showing the differential between under the slab and outside:
[https://www.clutchprep.com/physics/gauge-u-shaped-
tube](https://www.clutchprep.com/physics/gauge-u-shaped-tube)

------
lixtra
J&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-
state...](https://www.jnj.com/our-company/johnson-johnson-issues-statement-on-
reuters-talc-article)

~~~
mikeyouse
Which is a cute line, but Reuters has the receipts... dozens of documents with
experts from all over pointing out that the J&J talc sources have worrying
levels of asbestos. My favorite one is a 2018 lab report in which they tested
a sample of 1978 Baby Powder that they pulled from the J&J Museum and found
asbestos:

[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5080806-2018-lab-
rep...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5080806-2018-lab-report-
on1978-Baby-Powder-sample-from-J.html)

> _" Based on the results of our analysis, it can be stated, that individuals
> who used 1978 Johnson's Baby Powder would have, more likely than not, been
> exposed to fibrous amphibole asbestos."_

Caveats that this likely came from a plaintiff's attorney, but the methods
seem solid.

Another fun one from J&J's scientists in 1973:

[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5005205-April-26-197...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5005205-April-26-1973-DeWitt-
Petterson-Memo.html)

> _" The talcs contain widely varying amounts of tremolite or fibrous talc.
> Our Baby Powder contains talc fragments classifiable as fiber. [...] It
> should be cautioned, however, that no final product will ever be made which
> will be totally free of respirable particles."_

They knew their product had respirable particles, including nonzero quantities
fibrous particles.. they lobbied the FDA to use less sensitive tests so that
their products wouldn't fail tests, and they lied about it for the past 40
years. I'm shocked they only lost 10% of their company's value today.

~~~
lixtra
> It should be cautioned, however, that no final product will ever be made
> which will be totally free of respirable particles.

What is the definition of particles? I’m not surprised that talcum powder
contains respirable (talc) particles.

~~~
mikeyouse
The important distinction is "Respirable" not "particles". Respirable
particles are those that are small enough to get into the alveoli of the
lungs. Most talc particles are much larger, >25μm, which are easily caught in
the nasal passages or cilia in the throat but there's a huge range of sizes
depending on the talc source. Small particles (<10μm) can move to the lungs,
hence the air quality warnings at PM2.5, PM7.5, and PM10. Particles of that
size are particularly dangerous, but moreso when they contain fibrous
silicates like asbestos, which are known to cause cancer when respired.

In the Reuters documents, you see repeated references from scientists /
consultants to just swapping the talc for corn starch since it has a larger
average particle size and a smaller distribution of sizes -- and importantly,
doesn't have any fibrous silicates which can't be guaranteed with mined talc.

------
horizontaltonto
Tylenol 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
Good point. [http://time.com/3423136/tylenol-
deaths-1982/](http://time.com/3423136/tylenol-deaths-1982/)

~~~
mikeyouse
It'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/j...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-
verdict/johnson-johnson-hit-with-247-million-verdict-in-hip-implant-trial-
idUSKBN1DG2MB)

[3] - [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/29/revealed-
joh...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/29/revealed-johnson-
johnsons-irresponsible-actions-over-vaginal-mesh-implant)

~~~
agumonkey
I 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.

------
jacobwilliamroy
I 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?"

------
rmm
Aren’t lots of street narcotics “cut” with talcum powder?

I wonder if any studies show any correlation of mesothelioma and drug use...

~~~
mirimir
I'm sure that some idiotic dealers do that.

But generally, one uses lactose or cornstarch.

Always spit in your palm, add a small sample, and mix. If it's gritty or even
cloudy, don't buy. If you intend to inject, also don't buy if it's viscous.
And always do progressive dosage testing, to reduce the risk of overdose or
outright poisoning.

~~~
nsxwolf
Do drug dealers just let you do that?

~~~
mirimir
Anyone who won't is not someone you'd want to buy from.

------
minikites
>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.

~~~
0x8BADF00D
Not 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.

~~~
CptFribble
If 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-b...](https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-
parkersburg/)

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?

------
itronitron
parents 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.

------
Aloha
As far as I know, Asbestos is only harmful when inhaled, no?

~~~
tekno45
Baby powder is in the air pretty often with a baby in the house.

~~~
astura
Some adults use baby power too, sometimes every day.

~~~
agumonkey
yeah, every baby caring employee (nursery, kindergarten even) might accumulate
risks over their career..

~~~
astura
I 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-
pow...](https://www.thecut.com/2016/04/sad-truth-behind-the-baby-powder-
ovarian-cancer-lawsuits.html)

------
zerr
What about other baby powder brands?

------
perpetualcrayon
If 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
Thefts, 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?

------
askaboutit
Jail time for a small amount of weed. Payouts and bonuses for killing people
in the name of money. America.

~~~
matt4077
Well, 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.

------
wnevets
but at least the shareholders got to make tons of money tho, right?

~~~
p1esk
not today!

------
fzeroracer
This 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.

~~~
briandear
How is this “unfettered?” FDA does quite a bit of “fettering.” That the
regulation failed isn’t a failure of free markets, if anything, it’s a failure
of regulation. If you are going to regulate and the regulations didn’t work,
yet the companies complied with said regulation, do you blame the company or
the government?

Plenty of nasty products from the Soviet planned economy only there, you
wouldn’t have the benefit of competitors or alternatives for the public —
assuming you could even good goods at all. People that complain about
capitalism have never lived under the alternative.

~~~
fzeroracer
This is the very definition of whataboutism.

And the clear answer is to blame both. Especially when the line between
corporation and government is blurred due to lobbying and vested interests.

