Johnson & Johnson has long been the undisputed leader in baby product sales and has always tried to portray himself as a careful, caring company. But a remarkable new report from Reuters suggests something else. The report indicates that small amounts of asbestos have tricked into some of the company's talks – the substance that makes baby powder powdery – dates back to the 1970s. The company allegedly does not communicate clearly results, and sometimes disturbed them, both to consumers and the Food and Drug Administration.
The information Reuters examined came to light this past summer. Johnson and Johnson were sued by 22 women who claimed that the company's baby powder caused ovarian cancer, resulting in a damnation of 4.7 billion dollars against the company. As a result, old corporate documents that revealed the deeds were published. On Friday, this news was provided with the company's share, which fell 1
This is just the latest in a series of bad news for the company, who already fights for litigation and terrible PR. In recent years, Johnson & Johnson has suffered a small setback after it was discovered that the iconic golden baby shampoo contained formaldehyde-releasing ingredients. The company removed these chemicals (although they are probably safe in the amount found in personal care products), and have recently revised the entire baby range to compete with smaller brands that have embraced so-called "pure" ingredients.
Lastly, it has been to sue for sue who claims that speech use caused the plaintiff's cancer. In particular, some evidence from a 2016 lawsuit suggested that in the early 1990s targeted black and Spanish women who already used the powder in the gender area in higher numbers than white women, for "more aggressive marketing." There is another 11,700 plaintiff lined up for matters against J & J, all related to talc.
J & J has strongly denied that its talks contained asbestos through these features. The link between ovarian cancer and talc is not critical and it is still unclear that the small amounts of asbestos reported in J & J's earlier test were able to cause the forces in the past and current litigation. But what is not in doubt is that asbestos is a well-established carcinogen.
The negative publicity of the high legal payments and Reuters seemingly offensive evidence that they have had a shameful behavior from the company earlier has led to the issue of hygiene product safety and consumer confidence in the forefront. The FDA has very little regulatory power over hygiene products and cosmetics. But this news, which comes at a time when consumer demand puts a lot of pressure on legislators, may ultimately mean that the laws are changing.
Baby powder and asbestos
Talc is a natural mineral extracted from the earth. It is not certain that talc, and the speech product's speech, is safe, even in its purest form. In some cases it may also be polluted with asbestos. Asbestos – a category of fibrous minerals known to cause cancer – often appears in the same mines where talk is, causing contamination.
Health organizations recognize globally asbestos as carcinogenic, causing cancer like mesothelioma and ovarian cancer, especially among people like miners, construction workers and factory workers who have been exposed to it in large quantities. It gets fuzzier when trying to determine exactly how much exposure is required to actually cause cancer; no one knows how little is enough to put off the very complex chain of events that lead to the disease.
The Reuters report indicates that it is probably "impossible" to completely clean mined talk and definitely impossible to test for asbestos thoroughly and final in all commercial batches. All this adds a recipe for consumer issues – and litigation.
The Reuters article by Lisa Girion focuses heavily on reports and testing that J & J made in the 1970s both his baby powder and shower shower product marketed to adults. It weaves a story about how the company seems to have wanted consumers and even the FDA after researchers found that asbestos was harmful and that it appeared in talc samples. The FDA at some point in the 70's was to decide on and how to regulate it. Girion writes:
J & J did not tell the FDA about a 1974 test by a professor at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire who showed asbestos in talks from J & J. … The father also did not tell the FDA about a 1975 report from its long-term laboratory that found particles identified as "asbestos fibers" in five out of 17 talks of talc from the main source of Baby Powder. J & J continued to insist that the products, even when traces of asbestos were present, were safe and finally convinced consumers that they could be considered as asbestos free. It allegedly used J & J sponsored studies to "prove" this. In the early 1980s, consumers were lobbying the FDA to demand talcum products to carry an asbestos alert level, but the agency was disturbed.
Johnson and Johnson did not respond to Vox's request for comments, but it sent a long statement on their website and wrote that "the Reuters article is unilateral, false and inflammatory" and a "conspiracy theory" . It continues, "Johnson and Johnson's baby powder is safe and asbestos-free. Studies of more than 100,000 men and women show that speech does not cause cancer or asbestos-related disease." It accused Reuters of not considering recent tests and collaboration with governing bodies. It did not claim otherwise Reuters claims.
Consequences for the Consumers Now
Chances such as mesothelioma can take decades after exposure, so even though talcum in the 80's, 90s and today has been relatively asbestos-free, old exposure may have consequences in today's. According to Girion in Reuters, "the FDA … has never restricted asbestos in cosmetic talc or established a preferred method of detecting it." It can change.
The American Cancer Society changed the formulation on its talkum website, which used to read: "All speech cum products used in homes have been asbestos-free since the 1970s," to indicate that products manufactured in the United States "should be free of detectable amounts asbestos. "ACS apparently changed the language after Reuters reaches the organization with the evidence it had revealed for this story.
The FDA has already met consumer pressure to look into talc. The use of baby powder has decreased and is a small percentage of J & J's business now. But talks are in many other cosmetics and personal care products, such as makeup and smooth lotions. In August, FDA took samples from several Talc suppliers and cosmetics brands at all price points, including products from Maybelline, Nars and Revlon. It analyzed them in an independent laboratory and found that no one contained asbestos, at least at levels that could be detected by the types of tests it used. It confirmed that the results were limited due to the small number of products tested.
Legislators have been faced with increased pressure in recent years from so-called "clean" beauty companies, and the consumer advocates both passing laws that give the FDA more regulatory power over cosmetics and personal care products. A bill was introduced by late Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and sponsored by late. Susan Collins (R-ME) in that regard. Scott Gottlieb, the current FDA commissioner, told Reuters that speech security is a priority for the agency. He said that the FDA planned to hold a forum early in 2019 "to see how we would develop standards to assess any risk."
Panic and Powder
It is unclear whether Johnson and Johnson ever want to stop producing their iconic baby powder. Doing that can be interpreted as an admission of injustice, which leads to even more litigation than what already exists. The company can also dig in its heels. It has insisted through its various legal cases (several of which the company has won) that it believes that its talc is safe and repeated its attitude in light of the Reuters article.
A representative of the company told Vox in September that the company removed certain chemicals from its baby products in recent years despite believing that people would finally understand the science and realize that these ingredients are completely safe and that they are okay to become in product. "It's not likely that consumers will start to feel better about themselves asparagus in their products anytime soon, and self-esteem in the company has clearly been eroded.
One of the other reasons why this problem is so tough is that it is very difficult to determine a definitive cause in cancer cases. As Nicole Wetsman pointed out in popular science in August after major injuries were awarded to the 22 women who claimed to have ovarian cancer from using baby powder (whether asbestos was there), have legal and scientific proving different standards. "What the judicial system considers enough evidence to establish that exposure causes disease is different from science standards – and trying to fit the two together can be dangerous," she wrote.
There is a lot of baseless fear of chemicals in consumer products now, and certainly there are lawyers who will try to capitalize on this latest bad news for Johnson & Johnson. But even though they There is plenty of gray area with talc, it seems that the moment is there to potentially move Talc-based baby powder to the medicine cabinet in history.
Want more stories from Vox? Sign up for our newsletter here.