Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its Baby Powder

It&#x27;s sad that I&#x27;m not surprised that a company would put profit over life. I&#x27;m saddened by the fact but not surprised.<p>What really gets me is that baby powder is marketed towards young mothers and babies. That&#x27;s a hardcore attitude towards money over life. How can they ever defend that?

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.

J&amp;J responds [1]:<p>&gt; The Reuters article is one-sided, false and inflammatory.<p>&gt; The article ignores that thousands of tests by J&amp;J, regulators, leading independent labs, and academic institutions have repeatedly shown that our talc does not contain asbestos.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jnj.com&#x2F;our-company&#x2F;johnson-johnson-issues-statement-on-reuters-talc-article" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.jnj.com&#x2F;our-company&#x2F;johnson-johnson-issues-state...</a>

Tylenol 1982? J&amp;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&#x27;re in by simply looking the other way

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&amp;J executive self are the same or very similar; differing only in circumstances, rather than character.<p>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&#x27;m just brain-storming from my armchair over here; A thorough investigation would probably yield better answers to the question of &quot;How can I meet my needs if I admit that the company I work for sold asbestos to babies for decades without telling anyone?&quot;

Aren’t lots of street narcotics “cut” with talcum powder?<p>I wonder if any studies show any correlation of mesothelioma and drug use...

parents shouldn&#x27;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.

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

What about other baby powder brands?

If the economic model was different they might have spoken up. I think it might be worthwhile, in this case, to examine &#x2F; contrast what a socialist society might do vs a capitalistic society.<p>EDIT: I&#x27;m in no way inferring this is a black and white issue. But I do think it&#x27;s a worthwhile experiment for the mind.

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

&gt;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.<p>Yet another example proving that no corporation considers the interests of the public in any way. I&#x27;m baffled that anyone can argue for unfettered free market capitalism with such a bevy of evidence against it.

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

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&#x27;s little recourse or the damage is already done.<p>Eventually the free market might kick in and result in companies like J&amp;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.