> The Lancet published an unsigned commentary in 1977, asserting that there was no need for regulation because the cosmetic industry in both the US and the UK had ensured that their products were virtually free of asbestos fibres … Newly released documents show that The Lancet's commentary was written by a paid consultant of Johnson & Johnson—one of the world's leading manufacturers of cosmetic talc products
Not much of a shock, but - what’s the logic in this argument? “There’s no asbestos now, so there’s no need to regulate?” How does that make sense? Without regulation, how can you verify that there’s no asbestos now, and how can you ensure there will continue to be no asbestos in the future?
Like who would buy an ‘argument’ like that?
icegreentea2•17m ago
The argument is that the opportunity cost outweighs the marginal gains.
The original argument (it's linked is that):
* The major manufacturers are already restricting asbestos
* That asbestos contamination is detrimental to cosmetic quality, and therefore manufacturers have a self-interested motivation to meet their claimed safety specifications
* In any case, the most likely sources of contamination are those which were not yet determined to be cancer causing
* Oh, and we should regulate medicinal talc first before cosmetics
CGMthrowaway•5m ago
The commentary did not in fact say "there was no need for regulation because the cosmetic industry in both the US and the UK had ensured that their products were virtually free of asbestos fibre." The link in the Lancet post is broken, but here is the 1977 commentary: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736...
What it in fact says: "In summary, there is no reason to believe that normal consumer exposure to cosmetic talc has in the past led either to cancer at any site or to measurable loss of lung function. It seems unlikely that future exposure to cosmetic talc of the specifications now agreed to by major manufacturers will present a health hazard."
CGMthrowaway•11m ago
Bookmarking this for 2070 and all the covid papers
mock-possum•26m ago
Not much of a shock, but - what’s the logic in this argument? “There’s no asbestos now, so there’s no need to regulate?” How does that make sense? Without regulation, how can you verify that there’s no asbestos now, and how can you ensure there will continue to be no asbestos in the future?
Like who would buy an ‘argument’ like that?
icegreentea2•17m ago
The original argument (it's linked is that):
* The major manufacturers are already restricting asbestos
* That asbestos contamination is detrimental to cosmetic quality, and therefore manufacturers have a self-interested motivation to meet their claimed safety specifications
* In any case, the most likely sources of contamination are those which were not yet determined to be cancer causing
* Oh, and we should regulate medicinal talc first before cosmetics
CGMthrowaway•5m ago
What it in fact says: "In summary, there is no reason to believe that normal consumer exposure to cosmetic talc has in the past led either to cancer at any site or to measurable loss of lung function. It seems unlikely that future exposure to cosmetic talc of the specifications now agreed to by major manufacturers will present a health hazard."