Asbestos, talc, and The Lancet's 1977 publication

mock-possum

> 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?

CGMthrowaway

Bookmarking this for 2070 and all the covid papers

MarkusQ

This is one side on a contentious, litigious, high-stakes issue telling us about the conduct of the other side. Set your skepticism accordingly. (Also be sure to check your doubt-diodes periodically; it's quite possible for both sides to be wrong, lying, shading the truth, or just full of it.)

mono442

asbestos is a naturally occuring mineral, it's not impossible for it to make its way into cosmetics

jinnko

Veritasium recently did a very good episode about asbestos which also mentions this paper. Well worth a watch. https://youtu.be/cMx139eTxoc