Johnson & Johnson Found To Have Knowingly Allowed Asbestos In Their Baby Powder
Johnson and Johnson have recently lost lawsuits for negligence in knowingly allowing carcinogenic substances in their talc-based hygiene products.
Are we starting to turn the page on an era where human health and safety are not the prime considerations in the manufacturing of consumer products? We are starting to awaken to the fact that it seems to be the rule, and not the exception, that large Western corporations put profits above human health considerations.
The only time they seem to give any regard to human health concerns is when their forecasts of potential lawsuits down the road would likely exceed the cost measures needed to ensure the safety of their product. Johnson Johnson is just one of a long line of corporate perpetrators who believed that covering up and lying about known health concerns would make better business sense than taking the time and resources to actually address those health concerns within their products. One would think, regardless of an understanding that the bottom line is a priority for most private companies, that the health and safety of a nursing mother and her newborn child would be sacrosanct for any industry.
The reality is that this is simply not the case, even though JJ could have mitigated this problem from the start. Companies that mine talc are required to take extra steps to ensure the absence of asbestos in their talc. Instead, JJ allegedly went to great lengths to fake it. Not only did the company know about the asbestos contamination, evidence suggests, but JJ also failed to warn its customers about the link between Baby Powder and cancer or replace its talc with a safer alternative. As a result, JJ guaranteed its customers’ exposure to asbestos. And regardless of their size or numbers, asbestos fibers are lethal at any capacity. As the World Health Organization (WHO) has stressed repeatedly, there is no safe level of exposure. (source) Baby Powder’s contamination with asbestos (a mineral that naturally occurs near talc) has long been the subject of lawsuits. But only in recent years has evidence begun to unravel JJ’s defense – that the company had no idea – and threatened its success in lawsuits to come. In March, a California jury awarded $29 million to Terry Leavitt, a woman who said that asbestos in Johnson Johnson’s talcum-powder-based products caused her terminal mesothelioma. Environmental scientist James Webber testified in her high-profile California trial and made these observations: During several hours on the stand, Webber explained how he ran tests that showed “clear” evidence of asbestos contamination in the mines from which JJ sourced talc. “The testing I have seen [shows] that it was present at least as early as 1971 and up through the late 1990s,” said Webber, who ran an asbestos laboratory in New York state. Despite denying it publicly, JJ had observed this contamination in internal memos. Its notes dismissed the amount of asbestos in its talc as “but a trace,” Webber alleged. But that was just an optimistic interpretation of superficial testing, he said: the tests used methods too weak to detect microscopic asbestos fibers. Webber insisted the actual tests results revealed there could be millions of asbestos fibers per gram of talc. And JJ’s inaccurate reports were allegedly only the tip of the iceberg. In some instances, Webber said, photos attached to JJ’s reports revealed that “they had been seeing it and not reporting it.” (source) The $29 million verdict, in California Superior Court in Oakland, was the latest defeat for the healthcare conglomerate facing more than 13,000 talc-related lawsuits nationwide. And things may be getting even worse for JJ, according to ZeroHedge: Johnson Johnson shares are down over 5% after Bloomberg reports that, according to people with knowledge of the matter, the U.S. Justice Department is pursuing a criminal investigation into whether Johnson Johnson lied to the public about the possible cancer risks of its talcum powder... Now, a grand jury in Washington is examining documents related to what company officials knew about any carcinogens in their products, the people said. It seems as though corporations have long been willing to take the calculated risk of short-cuts and denials instead of ensuring that their products are safe for public use. My suspicion is that a part of our collective awakening process will be issuing in a new business paradigm in which human health and safety become paramount. Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network! It is the world's first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows. Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and watch 100's of hours of conscious media videos, that you won't see anyw.
Read the full article at the original website
References:
