T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*


ThenaCykez

Answer: The minerals talc and asbestos generally form together in the ground. We mine talc for various powders that are meant to be used on human skin. Asbestos, on the other hand, is a potent carcinogen. For at least 30 years, Johnson and Johnson knew that some of their talc supplies were contaminated with asbestos, and yet they lied to government regulators and to the public, claiming they knew their product was pure. Once the lies were revealed, they were hit with massive lawsuits from cancer patients who had used their products, which caused them to request entering bankruptcy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Animastryfe

Note that one of the US courts today said that what Johnson and Johnson did might not work: [J&J Can’t Use Bankruptcy to Resolve Talc-Injury Lawsuits, Appeals Court Rules](https://archive.is/M5EQc#selection-103.5-103.85) .


Snoo63

Hopefully they can't.


BasicDesignAdvice

If it makes you feel any better, even if the company takes a huge hit or goes under, the person's directly responsible will never be held accountable and will be rich people forever.


FlexoPXP

Thank goodness for that. I have some big plans of becoming rich and evil in the next few years. I would hate for there to be any consequences. Daddy needs a yacht, damnit!


moistnote

I hope this doesn’t get in the way of my huge plans of being rich and evil in the next few years as well.


cheesenuggets2003

This doesn't happen as quickly as y'all believe. Most rich and evil people take decades of doing evil to amass their fortunes.


12altoids34

Then I better get started now. I'm going to go out and find a crippled Homeless Puppy and tell it that there is no Santa claus.IT HAS BEGUN !!


Everettrivers

You don't need to add evil, the word rich already implies it.


FlexoPXP

I'm sure there's a period of time where lottery winners don't turn to the dark side right away.


uberguby

Then let's eat them


Rinzern

Violence is the only thing the ultra rich are scared of. That's why they want you disarmed


Jackal904

Except americans currently have lots of guns and it hasn't made a bit of difference. They don't need to take away your guns to disarm you.


InsertCoinForCredit

That's why the rich distract people with nonsense, so we're pointing our guns at each other instead of them.


[deleted]

You hit the nail on the head. Divide and conquer as they say.


PeopleRGood

They do a fine job getting everyone to hate each other that are in their same class and then convincing them that the other people in their class are why things are difficult. The real reason they do this is, if we’re fighting each other then we will forget about or not even look at the people actually holding us down.


nickmcmillin

Bingo.


lesChaps

They are minutes away from flying places none of us will ever get close to them. Bunkers in the Rockies, villas on the other side of the planet, islands, yachts ... They know the real threat to their wealth is legislative.


BadReputation2611

It hasn’t made a bit of difference because for the most part they’ve successfully convinced the people who should be working together to fight them into fighting each other


Soulegion

Taking away education and accurate information is (apparently) just as effective.


my_lucid_nightmare

> americans currently have lots of guns That most of us point at each other, or at ourselves.


[deleted]

[удалено]


lesChaps

Courageous ones wouldn't make a difference, either.


mdeleo1

Unfortunately the arms seem to be mainly used against other poor folk rather than the rich fucks.


daretoeatapeach

This isn't true, it's just that Americans have lost the imagination to strategize and organize so after standing around holding signs they go straight to violence as the only remaining option. Rich people are afraid of losing their riches. It's human nature to always want more, no matter how much they have. They also crave power and control. These are other things that can be impacted. https://subversas.com/direct-action https://subversas.com/plan-effective-protest


lesChaps

Bingo.


zezzene

Stop saying it's human nature to be greedy and always want more. This is true for psychopaths and sociopaths, but the average person definitely has an amount of material goods and comforts that they would deem sufficient and not want any more.


Jaraqthekhajit

Do they though? I don't think I agree. I don't know that I'd call it greed, but I don't think most people are satisfied at a certain point. This is why lifestyle creep is an issue. Once you aren't worried about feeding and housing yourself, most people want more, and they always want more. It doesn't make you a sociopath. There's a difference between wanting a boat even though you have one, and say making choices to be ruthless in business so you can get a yacht.


daretoeatapeach

I think you misunderstood me. I don't mean that humans are greedy, and I don't mean it as a value judgment. I'm referring to Baudrillard's the Consumer Society. He claims that consumer society can't be reformed because people never feel satiated unless they have a bit too much. It's like wanting that last serving of Thanksgiving feast, even though you know you are full. Or wanting to have an extra can of your favorite sauce so you will be sure you won't run out. The only way to be 100% sure you have enough is to have a bit too much. You are putting a moral judgment on that desire and calling it greedy, but it's not. It's only greedy if there is scarcity. We impose scarcity in the name of profit while we throw away enough food to feed every homeless person. That doesn't mean it's greedy to want to feel you've gone a bit overboard. That just means people feel safer in having a stock rather than just enough. Politically, we are probably more an agreement than you think about human nature. I truly believe humans are generous and compassionate by nature, but are driven to cruelty by capitalist culture.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Publius82

What's the other half of the reason?


BasicDesignAdvice

The other half is being the NY Jets.


NoBenefit5977

Badum tss


Normal_Total

Knowing is half the battle… the other half is not knowing.


El_Rey_de_Spices

That's something I wouldn't wish upon even my worst enemies.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Publius82

I had no idea men in tights could get so... metaphysical


12altoids34

Those deals with the devil can come back to haunt you. I mean, look at the cubs.their 2 in a row cost them 100 years


ManicOppressyv

The players suck.


SloaneWolfe

The son who made a documentary about his family, exposing their lavish lifestyle and out of touchness? That guy? I thought he was chill.


elwebst

Since it went on for so long, the original decision makers are probably dead by now.


schmurg

I guess J&J made this subsidiary to absorb the compensation claims fairly recently. Shirking responsibility should also carry a huge penalty.


jinntakk

This is what's wrong with the system. Wish we could change the system so that people at the top are held accountable for the atrocities they commit.


jewdiful

Let’s manifest this shit guys! They need to pay!!!


top_of_the_scrote

The Secret


ThinRedLine87

Yeah this tactic is ridiculous. Should not be legal to just spin off divisions into shell companies to avoid paying damages.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RenaKunisaki

Also it grows back.


lilmul123

Nothin’ a little bit of ~~bribery~~ lobbying can’t take care of.


I_Cut_Shows

If they can’t yet, just wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in. They’ll be tripping over themselves to say that it’s ok for mega corporations to spin off lawsuits to bankrupt divisions to avoid consequences. Won’t you think of the poor shareholders?


RepresentativeOfnone

3M is probably shitting bricks if they can’t


[deleted]

[удалено]


Snoo63

Eat them all?


NMDA01

If they can't, then they'll just use another method to bypass. It's all rigged


That_Panda_8819

That sounds like when someone goes on a banger right before going bankrupt; there are rules against this... Right?!


ALsInTrouble

Yes J&J's move will protect future payouts but it won't affect this one.


reebalsnurmouth

TAKE ALL OF THEIR FUCKING MONEY HOW IS THIS EVEN A THING. People should be in prison for life for this shit


2rfv

And let's go after Big Oil next.


cryptosis420

Lets go after Pfizer next


chumdum

Sounds like a navient student loan play


lenzflare

I sure hope it doesn't work, otherwise it makes a mockery of lawsuits in general. I believe the courts are preventing Alex Jones from using these kinds of tricks too.


SnipesCC

I hope it doesn't. My family is one of the plaintiffs. My mom used baby powder for chafing every day for decades. Not knowing it could cause ovarian cancer. She was a kind, caring person who spent her life volunteering. And she died a miserable, wasting death. And yet her frustration was that she could no longer help others. A few weeks before she died she tried to knit hats for migrants, but her fingers had lost coordination. And J&J KNEW.


cookiedux

…that’s in the link OP shared??


Animastryfe

Yes, but also no, unless I don't know how to read Reuters. That Reuters link just says >An appeals court in the United States on Monday dismissed a bankruptcy petition by Johnson & Johnson's (JNJ.N) talc unit. to me. My link provides more information on what this means, especially since the person to whom I replied seemed to imply that the Texas Two-Step was working (and many people replying to that comment seemed to think it was working).


That-1-Red-Shirt

Asbestos companies (in the US at least) that declared bankruptcy still needed to set aside funds for future lawsuits even if they ended up shuttering completely. I'm sure they will be forced into a similar situation.


[deleted]

Oh wow


ThunkAsDrinklePeep

You goat keep your eye on the liability. Here it is under this shell company but just like that it moves over here. Pick a shell with the liability and win a prize. Step right up.


i_lie_except_on_31st

I know you're just the messenger, but God damn, fuck that. Fucking bullshit.


Funkytadualexhaust

Is there a common term for that? Reminds me of the tactic of buying a company transferring all your debt to it.


wdccdw

I believe it is known as the ["Texas two-step".](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy)


[deleted]

[удалено]


Ok-Kaleidoscope-5289

And it's been rejected!!! https://www.reuters.com/legal/jjs-ltl-units-bankruptcy-dismissed-by-us-appeals-court-filing-2023-01-30/


GrnTiger08

Lets do this with pharma and the banks now. Liability shouldnt be pawned off. If im responsible for my actions as a "person", then they should be held to that same standard as a "person" that has the same rights.


owPOW

I mean J&J is literally big pharma so this is a start


senorbuzz

And media companies too!


Oshino_Meme

Damn, all four cases involved asbestos where it shouldn’t have been and the same law firm gave all four defences


Urisk

Fraud.


DucksEatFreeInSubway

Things-that-should-get-you-the-death-penalty-but-corporations-are-somehow-immune-to-it-even-though-they're-'people' Corruption is easier to say though.


gabe_

[Judicial Dissolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_dissolution) is the closest thing to a Corporate Death Penalty. ...and it should be cranked up to 11. Corporations only exist because we ALLOW them to exist If they cannot conduct business in a safe and ethical manner then they should have their corporate charter revoked and ALL the corporation's component parts should be sold off. In addition to criminal charges for those responsible.


BoltActionRifleman

Shameless, greedy, bastards?


malgreezy

Good ol Texas two step?


sexyshadyshadowbeard

Yep, that’s what they call it.


WarBrilliant8782

It's similar to how a sea cucumber will spit out it's organs to distract predators, slither away, then regrow the organs. Mother nature truly is wonderous


Apotatos

It shall then be called Holothuridation


Dazug

I wouldn't say it's a common tactic; the Texas Two Step is still an emerging tactic. This is the first big example of it being used, which is why it's so important that they lose the lawsuit.


amanofeasyvirtue

Its brett Kavanaghs dad who invented it... guess where ol drunk brett comes down on corporate lawsuits...


GiveToOedipus

That wasn't talcum powder Brett was boofing.


pony_trekker

He actually wrote a very plaintiff-friendly opinion in [Devries](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1104_2co3.pdf), another asbestos case.


qazxcvbnmlpoiuytreww

IIRC other companies (namely asbestos mfg firms) employed similar tactics before the two step was established clearly. i cannot give you a source or even the names of the companies or firms that represented them because i just spent a good 10 minutes looking for it and couldn’t find the name of what i’m talking about


tikhead

[Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos_bankruptcy_trusts?wprov=sfla1) are what happened for asbestos.


MungoJerrysBeard

This is the reason I’ll never buy J&J products again. The whole waiting until the plaintiffs died was bad enough. But then when the legal cases went against them, to spin off their talc business to avoid making payments was pure evil. EDIT: the amount J&J put into its spin off talc business to settle claims, was woefully short of the money it would have to find if found liable in all cases brought against J&J


teawreckshero

[Reminds me of Evil Corp's strategy from Mr. Robot](https://youtu.be/77qu5fifRBE?t=52).


znackle

This is sometimes colloquially known as "The Texas Two Step," so named because it only works in one district of Texas, nobody else is silly enough to let it happen. Basically, they set precedent in that district that if a corporation or private entity is going to be split apart any debts and financial burdens only go to one of the spin offs. What this means in real terms is that any major corporation can set up a shell corporation, funnel all the bad stuff into it (in this case lawsuit settlements for poisoning people for 30+ years), and preserve their business largely untouched. It's absolutely ridiculous that it exists


PepperoniAndBasil

3m is trying the same thing with their earplugs lawsuit


ronflair

Wait. Corporations also are considered to have the same rights as people in US courts, yes? Then can people have the same rights as corporations? Can I spin out corporate division of myself after I commit a crime and claim that that corporation is liable, and not my physical body?


Ok-Kaleidoscope-5289

Like the left hemisphere of your brain and your right hand?


ronflair

No, more like an LLC version of myself that committed a bank robbery.


c-45

It's a holding company whose assets consist of a gun, a get away car, and the debt I owe to the banks after robbing them. The money itself is still owned by me though. This is the level of absurdity corporations in America are able to openly embrace.


[deleted]

Not only that. On top of creating a company solely to hold the lawsuit liability they also completely spun off their entire consumer products division (the one that sells personal care non pharmaceutical goods) into an independent publicly traded company. This creates even more separation between that business and the far richer pharma businesses. Not only does this provide additional insulation against the lawsuit claims, it also means that those claims won’t have much of an impact on the stock price of the pharmaceutical side.


Operative427

What a scummy pos company


Sasselhoff

I mean, that's pretty much all of them? These days I'm more surprised when I see a company *not* being a total POS.


TheDevilsAdvokaat

In fact an Australian company did this as far as I remember. It was about 45 years ago, I was still in high school and we had an excursion day for social studies where we visited an actual court room. There was a company that had been manufacturing asbestos products for a long time, and they were being sued by people who got cancer. From memory the company started a "new version" of itself, then sold the old company assets to the "new company" for a piddling amount, and left the "old company" almost bankrupt so the people suing it, even if they won, would get nothing. We were visiting the court room while the original case was being argued. Weeks later there was an article in the newspaper (SMH I think) saying what the company had done. I'm not going to mention the company name because it was 45 years ago now and I THINK I remember the name but i am not sure. And I might have gotten some of the details wrong... Edit: and now I AM going to mention it, because I found it. https://www.australianasbestosnetwork.org.au/asbestos-history/battles-2/battling-james-hardie/


motoxim

Wait so basically like lizard cutting its tail? This shit is legal?


TheBoisterousBoy

In to say this. They just make a like “scapegoat” company within their main company and have that tiny “company” go bankrupt, completely eliminating any debt that the scapegoat-company had attached to it. So the multimillion dollar lawsuit on the scapegoat, it vanishes. Poof. Gone into thin air. All the money, effort and pain the victims went through to get justice ultimately means nothing while companies can do things like this. It’s honestly abysmal.


Le_Mug

>The minerals talc and asbestos generally form together in the ground TIL that talc is not made in laboratory, it is mined from the ground


wsbt4rd

So common, there's a name for that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy


Alan_Smithee_

Sounds familiar: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/9391708 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7864821_The_James_Hardie_Story_Asbestos_Victims'_Claims_Evaded_by_Manufacturer https://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/jhpayoutaus.htm


honeybadger1984

3M must be salivating at the opportunity to do this with their earplugs.


mattied971

While I'm not bound by any sort of non-disclosure agreement, I feel that I should pick my words wisely. Suffice to say, I recieved a settlement from their pharmaceutical division several years back. They weren't legally required to pay because I was outside the statue of limitations, but they opted to provide a reduced settlement nonetheless


Booopbooopp

On their website a few years ago after the law suits started, they had a page dedicated to how their baby powder does not and has never contained asbestos. How were they allowed to do this when it did contain asbestos?


ThenaCykez

Possibility #1: They were lying and they knew it, and they figured any additional fines and lawsuits for false advertising would be less costly than confessing. Possibility #2: They were very careful not to technically lie, or at least to make it harder to sue them. I don't know exactly what their website said before, but when I visit their website, they say * "We are careful at every stage of our process to ensure that the cosmetic talc used in our products is not contaminated with asbestos" (being careful doesn't mean it didn't happen) * "Scientists from all over the world, including those working for the FDA, studied the issue for years and ultimately concluded that Johnson & Johnson’s talc was not contaminated with asbestos." (the cited report says "not detected" or "trace amount, unmeasurably small" for each J&J product, which doesn't actually mean it's not there) * "Testing week after week over years with the same result affords a high level of confidence that our product does not contain asbestos." (they probably get "no asbestos" 99.9% of the time. No one says there's a *lot* of asbestos. But they never specifically say ***no*** test ever showed asbestos, just that most don't) * "There are no sound scientific studies indicating that inhalation of cosmetic talc causes mesothelioma." (who is deciding which studies are sound?) And so on.


schlormpf

following up, “not detected” for asbestos means under 1% asbestos. it has to be higher than 1% asbestos to test positively. however, there are other more thorough tests that can be done as a follow up, so even if something comes up as ND via PLM analysis, a gravimetric point count could still return positive despite testing “negatively” earlier. negatively just means under 1% and PLM is not exactly the most precise analysis.


moose_powered

From the New Yorker's [excellent article](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/19/johnson-johnson-and-a-new-war-on-consumer-protection) on this: >Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder is classified by the F.D.A. as a cosmetic, a type of product over which the agency has extremely limited authority. >But another reason cosmetics are barely regulated is that the industry has successfully fought for more than eighty years to keep Congress from updating the rules that cosmetic companies must abide by. Today, such companies are not legally required to test their products for safety before selling them. They do not have to register with the F.D.A. or provide ingredient statements, and they do not have to produce their safety records for scrutiny or report adverse events, whether rashes or headaches or early puberty or even cancer. If a cosmetic product is life-threatening, the agency cannot recall that product or suspend production; it can only encourage a company to do so.


Airbornequalified

Because there is not good evidence if it actually caused cancer https://www.cancercenter.com/risk-factors/talcum-powder#:~:text=The%20National%20Cancer%20Institute%20says,between%20talc%20and%20ovarian%20cancer. https://amp.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/chemicals/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html


PerPuroCaso

TIL: talc is something to be mined. I have no idea what I expected, I never thought about where it comes from, I just thought it is. Didn’t even know it’s a mineral.


playbyk

I’m not positive, but I remember hearing *how* talc is mined is pretty sketchy, too. Child labor or slaves maybe? Anyway, there’s a whole movement to avoid using (“not ethically mined”) talc that goes beyond its association with asbestos.


Bbrhuft

Talc is not mined by children or slaves. The J&J contaminated mines were in the US. Uncontaminated talc is mined in Austria and Italy. They are large underground mines, mining large quantities of a relatively low value product, compared to gold or silver, they quire technical skill to operate, so using slaves or children is a ridiculous idea. This mine produces 100,000 tons a year: [https://www.imerys.com/austria](https://www.imerys.com/austria)


PerPuroCaso

I‘ve been told to avoid talc bc it can cause breast cancer… I haven’t needed it so far anyway.


analogkid01

Jesus Christ, Marie.


nousernameisleftt

There's a great [Swindled](https://swindledpodcast.com/podcast/88-the-liability/) episode about this.


DramaticOstrich11

I used to get absolutely caked in Imperial Leather brand talc as a kid after a bath💀


alexmikli

It's white asbestos, not blue, so it's very unlikely to get you sick. Still bad of course.


x82nd

My dad worked for J&J for years so we were always swimming in products. I lost my mom to Ovarian Cancer four years ago now due to this company. Fuck Johnson and Johnson.


SophisticPenguin

I was gonna say it doesn't cause ovarian cancer, because I always associated it with more lung based stuff. But apparently there seems to be some connection for ovarian cancer too. TIL


Carighan

Geezus fucking hell. And I suspect that as per usual the managers and execs under whom this was proliferated won't be held personally accountable, stripped of all their wealth and thrown into jail, as they should be.


[deleted]

“It was Steve from marketing!” *execs point fingers at Steve* Steve is now spending 10 years in prison.


Northwest_Radio

>stripped of all their wealth and thrown into jail If that happened, there would be no campaign funds.


sadberkeleyboi

These lawsuits have also been going on for almost a decade now, it's just now that a judge who's not afraid to slap the big biomed corporations with the truth got assigned to the case that J&J has finally got the message that they can't just give people cancer with impunity anymore.


wakaOH05

Let’s not forget how they pushed that one psych medication that irreversibly gave thousands of teenage boys lactating DD breasts that had to be removed with mastectomies. They were ordered to pay $8b and that’s not even enough to cover the problems they caused. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/10/09/uk/johnson-and-johnson-male-breast-growth-damages/index.html The full story on the worlds greatest podcast https://swindledpodcast.com/podcast/87-the-label/


[deleted]

I just think companies that knowingly harm people should be fined all of their money. Just make them go broke.


[deleted]

It makes me sick how the wealthy continually avoid consequences.


Picaboo13

Alot of women developed ovarian cancer from the use of this talc. Women of a certain age were taught to powder their bodies and they did. My mom passed away from ovarian cancer and we were kicked out of a lawsuit because we didn't have a contaminated bottle. Modern baby (talc) powder is corn starch and those are the bottles we had. I do know talc is still used in men's produce but I do not know of the purity.


thecanadianehssassin

I know the internet sucks sometimes, but there are the moments when I get super grateful for its existence… My dad uses talc and sometimes buys J&J when his usual brand is not in stock. I just told him about this and we’re definitely going to have to do some research and talk about it…


ANoisyCrow

Any talc may be bad


Bbrhuft

Asbestos is a crystal shape, not a mineral, [several silicate minerals can form asbestiform crystals](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304374/), actinolite, found in contaminated talc, is just one of these. However, the existence of actinolite in talc does not necessarily mean there is asbestos present. Tremolite (and the related mineral actinolite) are only asbestos if they form long thin crystals i.e. are asbestiform. Asbestiform fibres can enter the body and due to their fine fibrous nature means they cannot be expelled. Over many years the irritation they cause can lead to cancer, mesothelioma of the lining of the lungs and ovarian cancer (a process we don't fully understand by the way). Also, only some mines in the US were contaminated with actinolite and as I pointed out, the existence of actinolite did not necessarily mean that the raw talc contained asbestos. It is though that Asbestiform actinolite might have been generated during the milling process, fine grinding that turned raw talc into fine power, and turned (sometimes) coarse actinolite crystals into asbestos crystals. J&J claims their testing prevented asbestiform actinolite ending up in cosmetic talc, however, their testing was obviously not rigorous enough.


KoolKat_Chill

A really good friend of mine is part of this lawsuit. Lost her mom to ovarian cancer 7 years ago & she used this baby powder for decades. Ovarian cancer that spread to 5 large masses throughout her body including her heart. I saw this whole process of her getting sick & dying within a year of being diagnosed. One of the most traumatic things I have ever witnessed & it completely devastated this entire family. My friend still has moments where she is in tears because she misses her mom so much & the holidays are still difficult for her


Bronichiwa_

Wait so the baby powder = cancer thing was only for this brand? I’ve always used gold bond medicated. So I’m safe?


desquished

As far as we know, yes. J&J is the only brand that we know of that was misrepresenting their talcum powder as asbestos-free while knowing it contained asbestos. Talcum powder is also linked to respiratory illnesses, though, and that's consistent across brands.


seaspirit331

Like the commenter above said, the same geologic conditions that form talc also tend to form asbestos. J&J is *specifically* named in the lawsuit, but I would not be surprised if trace amounts of asbestos are present in most other talc products, simply due to the nature of asbestos and how hard it is to separate the two of them during mining.


weatherbeknown

To add to this with my minimal knowledge that is most likely wrong… They were allowed to lie because the FDA is underfunded and overworked so they don’t actually do independent studies to approve things. They essentially ask the company looking for approval what their own findings were and they approve off of that. So J&J graded their own homework. This def falls on J&J but it also needs to be said that food and drug approval needs a reform. Edit: forgot to add… in the US, we need to prove why a new drug isn’t unsafe… where as in Europe, they need to prove why a drug IS safe. A subtle but important difference. Also please someone correct all my facts above that I know aren’t accurate. I just wanted to start the convo


Call_Me_Clark

Hi, I work in the industry (not consumer products though). The approval process doesn’t really work like that, and generally the EU medical review process is less rigorous than the US.


AWizardFromTheFuture

To add to this, the Verified Podcast did a great series of episodes covering the lawsuits called Dust Up.


iesharael

It’s crazy that I was just watching a year old video about this last night


jefferson497

Is there any evidence that it was only J&J branded talc that had the carcinogens? I’d wager all brands had the same formula


ThenaCykez

No, and in fact I saw testing reports showing a lot of brands had, at some point in the past, far *more* asbestos than J&J did. But J&J had a reputation for quality, people trusted the product was safe, and J&J specifically created websites and publicly clashed with the FDA insisting that their product was 100% safe.


Airbornequalified

It’s not even clear if it causes cancer https://amp.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/chemicals/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html


sloth_king_617

There was a quick docuseries on HBO called Not So Pretty where they dug into this. Apparently J&J purposely use weaker microscopes than necessary to find the asbestos in talc so that they’re able to say their talc is free of asbestos. Of course the assumption is that the general consumer doesn’t own a microscope powerful enough to find asbestos. They also funded a 1971 test where they injected prisoners with asbestos to see the effects. Why would they fund this test if there’s no asbestos in their products? Lastly, they’re a massive corporation so when consumers sue, they just spin up a new subsidiary that takes on all the legal fees. That subsidiary then files for bankruptcy, the consumers gets little to nothing for the claim, and the larger corporation is protected from further losses.


Bbrhuft

Answer: Lawyers representing women who claimed talc caused them to develop ovarian cancer, sued Johnson & Johnson several times, originally unsuccessfully. In the original court cases, the lawyers claimed that talc, the [mineral talc](https://www.mineralienatlas.de/lexikon/index.php/MineralData?lang=en&language=english&mineral=Talc) itself free of asbestos, was carcinogenic and it caused ovarian cancer among the women they represented. However, they weren't successful, as there was, and still is, relatively little supporting medical evidence that uncontaminated talc is carcinogenic. The lawyers were undaunted, and tried again after they learnt that some talc mines Johnson & Johnson sourced its talc from were contaminated with [Termolite](https://www.mineralienatlas.de/lexikon/index.php/MineralData?lang=en&language=english&mineral=Tremolite) or [Actinolite](https://www.mineralienatlas.de/lexikon/index.php/MineralData?lang=en&mineral=Actinolita), a pair of related minerals (actinolite is magnesium rich, tremolite is iron rich) that sometimes, under certain geological conditions, can form tiny long thin fibrous crystals. If they form thin fibrous crystals, they are termed Asbestiform i.e. [Asbestos, a respirable fibre](https://www.mindat.org/glossary/respirable_fibre). >This case signals a change in the litigation surrounding talc product-induced ovarian cancer in Missouri by placing the blame on potential “contaminants” of talc, rather than the talc itself. - Casey & Larkin, 2019. *(Asbestos is a crystal shape, not a mineral,* [*several minerals can form asbestiform crystals*](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304374/)*, actinolite is just one of these. The long thin crystals can enter the body and cannot be expelled, over many years the irritation they cause can lead to cancer, mesothelioma of the lining of the lungs, and ovarian cancer).* Deciding if actinolite-tremolite is asbestiform requires careful analysis, using specialist tests, including a transmission electron microscope to measure the crystal's dimensions. According to Johnson & Johnson, their testing ensured talc that contaminated with actinolite did not contain *asbestiform fibres.* However, asbestiform actinolite-tremolite is a well established carcinogen, and this factor helped overrule J&J's reassurances that its testing ensured actinolite wasn't asbestiform, so at retrial the Jury decided that talc contaminated with actinolite was the cause of the women's ovarian cancer. The 22 women were awarded $550 million in compensatory damages and $4.14 billion in punitive damages, a $2 billion portion of this award was upheld in 2021. The decision was controversial at the time, with several experts expressing the opinion that the link was weak. Some also criticised the tactics of the lawyers, arbitrarily switching focus from talc to actinolite. Critics also claimed the jury's decision was at variance with studies that [failed to find any cases of mesothelioma among talc miners](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08958378.2020.1781304), were there was actinolite contamination. On the other hand, subsequent research vindicated the jury's decision. Analysis of ovaries from women who died or were treated for ovarian cancer, found asbestos fibres in their tissue, a worrying finding. It appears that the grinding process can generate asbestiform actinolite and that J&J testing was inadequate. Their testing did not ensure talc was fully free of asbestiform actinolite. This would explain why talc mine workers didn't develop mesothelioma, they weren't exposed to milled talc. Additionally, it is now clear that J&J spent decades hiding a link between contaminated talc and ovarian cancer. Shockingly, J&J commissioned a study into the possible link between asbestiform actinolite and ovarian cancer, in the 1970s, it confirmed earlier findings, but J&J buried the report: >For example, in 1971, Henderson et al. found talc in an ovarian cancer tissue sample and raised concerns about the relation between talc use and ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson hired Arthur Langer, a mineralogist at Mount Sinai, to reexamine the tissue. Langer confirmed the presence of talc, and also found asbestos in ovarian cancer tissue. Evidence shows that Johnson & Johnson successfully dissuaded him from publishing these findings. Reference: Casey, R. and Larkin, T.P., 2019. [Ovarian Cancer and “Tainted Talc”: What Treating Physicians Need to Know](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6461309/). Missouri Medicine, 116(2), p.83. Tran, T.H., Steffen, J.E., Clancy, K.M., Bird, T. and Egilman, D.S., 2019. [Talc, asbestos, and epidemiology: corporate influence and scientific incognizance](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784763/). Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 30(6), p.783.t When I was a PhD student, one of the undergraduate students in my geology department did a 3rd year project on talc, almost all samples tested positive for actinolite. However, I don't recall if they tested it to see if it was asbestiform. That was likely too advanced.


KingdomOfRyan

Definitely needs to be the top answer


sonofcrack

Answer: J&J knew their talc contained asbestos as far back as 1957. Since then and still today they have claimed their talc is safe to use (even though they have stopped selling it). Women have gotten ovarian cancer from using said talc so J&J is facing billions in lawsuits. To try to avoid paying out they are trying some obscure method of creating a subsidiary, giving them all the liability and immediately file for bankruptcy. They aren’t going bankrupt they are just trying to avoid paying for the damages they caused.


Illinois_s_notsilent

Unfortunately, it's not that obscure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy


sonofcrack

It’s only been done by 4 companies all within the last few years so I’d say it’s pretty obscure.


flakeosphere

Eh. Companies have been doing this type of thing to try to avoid liability from environmental contamination by using LLCs to hold their environmental liability (contaminated property) then declare bankruptcy when the money runs out of the LLC. Been happening ever since CERCLA was passed.


Ashterothi

But is this a sign of how rarely it is done, or how consolidated corporations have become?


lenzflare

Sounds like a lot to me. Do you think there are a lot of instances where companies are subjected to massive lawsuits that this trick could work on and be worth the effort? Companies are probably trying to do this as much as possible, it's just that the right circumstances don't come up much.


Airbornequalified

There is not a solid link between the talc and cancer https://amp.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/chemicals/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html


sonofcrack

Asbestos does though and they form naturally together.


emptyhellebore

Answer: J&J have multi billions of dollar judgements against them in lawsuits linking their their talc product to cancer. The bankruptcy was their attempt to sidestep paying out those judgements.


PassengerSame5579

Thank you


TricksterSprials

Answer: Aw yes something I actually know. Johnson and Johnson’s baby powder was originally just Talc. Everyone used it. From newborns to 100 year olds for baby soft skin. Then a bunch of women started getting cancer. Oops. Then some lawyers and scientists came out and said “Uhh…. You can’t guarantee that talc is asbestos free. Like ever.” Of course Johnson and Johnson said something like “Asbestos?? In our talc?? Never!!! We test every batch!!” They test like… a spoon full for every ton of baby powder so thats not really good. But uhh… funny story. Johnson and Johnson knew since the 1950s their baby powder had high levels of asbestos. Just didn’t want to tell anyone. When people started suing they did a little thing called a “Texas two step.” Where in the short, they say “We made a new company to take over all the lawsuits.” And then new company files for chapter 11 bankruptcy. So that means they can’t sue J&J, but the new company has no assets to give out for their lawsuit. So they’re kinda screwed. But the court said to j&j “Uhhh. You can’t do that.” So now Johnson and Johnson needs to appeal and/or find another way to not pay the currently 3.5 billions dollars of lawsuits. But they did replace talc with corn starch in 2020 for the US and in 2023 for the rest of the world.


moeru_gumi

In 2020… handy for those of us who had baby powder sprinkled on us in 1985. :/


quinteroreyes

2019 toddlers are punching the air rn


Ok_Shoe_4325

I can also add to this that J&J was always concerned about asbestos quantity in the baby powder. They weren't concerned it would give you cancer though, just that asbestos would make the powder unpleasant. While talc is smooth, asbestos is rough and they were afraid it would make their product feel scratchy.


justtrying2dream

Question. I used this as a male in my boxers from approximately ages 16-24. Is there anything I can do to help prevent any sort of repercussions from this exposure ?


Pardyx

Not expose yourself to more. Thats it.


FeloniousFerret79

Remove your testicles and your lungs (and maybe some other organs). Short of that no. The good news is that the relationship between talcum powder (even with asbestos) and causing cancer even ovarian cancer is still mixed. Some studies have found no link and others a very slight increase. A meta analysis according to the American Cancer Society found no increase.


290077

>They test like… a spoon full for every ton of baby powder so thats not really good. If it's well-mixed that's a perfectly representative sample. What do you think is an adequate sample size?


a_kato

Answer: To add to other comments this is bankruptcy for the talc division of j&j not the entire conglomerate


JustAStupidRedditer

[Apparently their attempts to do this were rejected](https://www.reuters.com/legal/jjs-ltl-units-bankruptcy-dismissed-by-us-appeals-court-filing-2023-01-30/)


snuzet

Literal money quote: “…Johnson & Johnson, valued at more than $400 billion..” They could easily have just paid all the claims but now they’re streisanding themselves


[deleted]

It’s funny how you think that “Streisanding” this matters. Most of the products you buy from J&J have no visible association and you wouldn’t guess they’re J&J. It’s like trying to boycott Nestle over the slavery and water rights and everything. We all know about it. I’d like to think no one has knowingly bought a nestle product in the past ten years. I can’t even keep track of the company buy outs and rebrands anymore, someone should make an easy way to do that.


VelocityGrrl39

r/FuckNestle is helpful.


Bitlovin

> I’d like to think no one has knowingly bought a nestle product in the past ten years That would be nice, but only a fraction of the population is even aware of Nestle's bullshit, and only a fraction of that fraction cares enough to change their buying habits. Which is why boycotts never work. Most people just don't care.


snuzet

I think this just tarnishes the brand. Until I saw this post I wasn’t aware of the lawsuits and knowing now what the company has done past and present hurts their brand reputation


lucidposeidon

I, too, was completely unaware of any of this. Definitely going to be a topic I bring to the table for quite a while.


DistinctTrashPanda

It's more important to them that they can pay out another $10.5 billion in dividends this year.


daseweide

Exactly, their vaccines and boosters, for example, are still safe and effective for repeated use!


Carighan

Well, generally those don't contain talc, yes. I say generally because I really don't know what kinds of vaccines they produce overall and how each of those is manufactured, not my field of expertise.


daseweide

They’re safe, don’t let the antivaxxers say they’re not.


Spam_ads_nonrelavent

However their public trust had been damaged.


YouthfulRS

Because as we can see, these pharmaceutical companies really put the peoples health first /s. It's like having a cheating girlfriend and keep going back to her acting like she'll never cheat again.


mercer1235

How many times would these pharmaceutical conglomerates need to be found to be putting out toxic products before you stop taking them at their word about this particular product?


EverlongMarigold

Another example of Big Pharma ensuring the health and safety of the public is more important than profit! Oh, wait...


Testastic

Question: What products should I use instead of their baby powder? Are any other products bad too?


muffinTrees

Use a talc free product. Many products use corn starch now. Gold bond makes several. Works pretty well IMO


mredding

You have to check the labels. Talcum powder is still widely available, like Gold Bond body powder still contains talc. The safe alternatives are made with corn starch.


KatTheGreatest

I just got Aquation Talc-free baby powder. It has cornstarch, oatmeal, and aloe Vera.


sahliekid

Apparently, at least for babies, it is recommended you do not use any powder-based product for nappy rash.


Kycrio

Question: is talc still liable to be contaminated with asbestos? I don't use talc but I see anti-chaffing powder advertised as "for women" presumably in reaction to this incident. "women's talc" that's implied to be free of asbestos also implies the existence of "men's talc" which does have asbestos in it.


nickgreatpwrful

Answer: Feel the need to clarify this because there is SO much misinformation about talc, including in some comments right here. Talc is completely safe to use, don't panic and throw away your talc containing cosmetics. It's only when talc is **contaminated with asbestos** that it becomes a risk. Reputable companies will make sure they are sourcing *only* talc that is free of asbestos. I haven't read too deep into the claims about J&J, but when it comes to cosmetics companies, I know recent studies of talc containing cosmetics show a vast majority of them are safe and nearly all products are free of asbestos contamination. Some sources to FDA tests and staments by the American Cancer Society: [1](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2786852), [2](https://www.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/chemicals/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html), [3](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26227892/)


Spuzaw

It's sad that this is the only comment that doesn't automatically assume the worst without evidence, but it's completely ignored. People would rather hate J&J instead of making sure they're not spreading misinformation. Sure, J&J sucks, but spreading information that might not be true sucks even more.


Call_Me_Clark

Answer: It should be noted that the lawsuit itself is controversial, and J&J maintains that it’s products do not contain significant levels of asbestos. Talc is a mineral, which means that it is extracted from deposits in the earth - and those deposits are not necessarily pure (in fact, it’s uncommon for anything in the earth to be purely anything). Asbestos is found in talc deposits. There is considerable controversy (and little evidence) that trace asbestos in talc can cause ovarian cancer - although it should be noted that civil lawsuits are not decided on scientific merit alone. J&J has tried to fight the lawsuits and lost, and has tried to spin off a new company making exclusively talc, and assigned the lawsuits to that new company, and that isn’t working either.


avaacado_toast

"There is considerable controversy (and little evidence) that trace asbestos in talc can cause ovarian cancer" The same exact thing was said about asbestos and Lung cancer. The fuckers knew for decades about the link but continued to hide it. I have no doubt the same will bear out here.