[HN Gopher] Johnson and Johnson reaches deal for $8.9B talc sett...
___________________________________________________________________
Johnson and Johnson reaches deal for $8.9B talc settlement
Author : fairytalemtg
Score : 155 points
Date : 2023-04-05 13:32 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| NhanH wrote:
| If I might have played with baby powder when I was a kid around
| 1996-1997, and I might even inhaled or huffed it (no way to
| remember now, I was 6 years old), how concern should I be?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| These lawsuits are from people who developed ovarian cancer
| after regularly using talcum powder for years or decades. Maybe
| your youthful use of talcum powder gave you an ever so slightly
| higher chance of developing lung cancer, but it's generally
| regular exposure that causes problems. I wouldn't be concerned.
| bcoates wrote:
| Brake pads were made of, not just possibly-contaminated-with,
| asbestos in that era, so assuming you lived somewhere with cars
| it wouldn't be a significant source.
|
| (but don't inhale rocks, they are bad for your lungs)
| treis wrote:
| The smallest amount of concern possible. The scientific record
| is mixed. Some studies find a small effect and others find no
| statistically significant link. Worst case scenario is 5ish
| additional cases of ovarian cancer in 100,000 people.
|
| AFAIK no link has been shown between lung cancer and talc.
| Likely none exists. Lung cancer links to stuff like Asbestos is
| limited to people like miners and factory workers who breathed
| the stuff in all day every day for decades. But generally
| speaking particulates are linked to lung cancer and other lung
| issues. Probably best to not breathe in clouds of the stuff but
| I wouldn't worry about normal usage.
| NhanH wrote:
| My concern would be mostly on the issue of asbestos
| contamination. I tried to find if there is any known
| contamination issue in the 90s, but my google-fu got nothing.
| amrb wrote:
| Remember this one
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
| MR4D wrote:
| Lots of people here are focusing on the size of the deal, which
| is admittedly large. However, the _terms_ are just as
| important....
|
| FTA - " _The proposed settlement would be paid out over 25 years_
| "
|
| Inflation alone will wipe a big chunk of that value. Evan at 3%
| inflation, they will save over 2.5 billion in real dollar terms.
| Etherlord87 wrote:
| I imagine the settlement considers inflation and corrects for
| inflation, unless the 8.9 B is already based on some prediction
| of future inflation.
| unwind wrote:
| I'm glad I've only seen this product in media, seems to not be a
| thing here in Sweden.
|
| I feel sorry for the people who have been hurt, of course. What
| crap.
| toxik wrote:
| This exists in Sweden. Babypuder.
| neilv wrote:
| > _If a bankruptcy court approves it, the agreement will resolve
| all current and future claims involving Johnson & Johnson
| products that contain talc, such as baby powder, the company
| said._
|
| When people later (inevitably) discover they got lung cancer, and
| it's traced to Johnsons & Johnsons Baby Asbestos, can they still
| sue J&J?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This case has been interesting from the start, given how weak the
| scientific evidence was. Has anyone improved on that, proving a
| causal link? This settlement sounds like J&J just trying to get
| the witch hunt to quit bleeding them. Which I suppose describes
| most corporate settlements, but still.
| boredhedgehog wrote:
| Given that there are distinct demographics that use this powder
| disproportionately (e.g. professional gymnasts and climbers),
| shouldn't an increased cancer rate be very visible?
| nickff wrote:
| I think you're mixing up chalk and talc. Climbers use chalk
| to increase friction; parents use talc to reduce friction.
| neilv wrote:
| What percentage of the top of the J&J org chart is spending the
| rest of their lives in prison, for putting asbestos into the air
| of baby nurseries in the 21st century?
| [deleted]
| user3939382 wrote:
| The courts aren't there to punish giant multinational
| corporations, they're there to protect their interests. Google
| "chevron donziger" if you have any doubt about that.
|
| In most cases the corporations or their lobby groups are writing
| the laws that regulate them. They literally write the bills and
| hand them to congress to pass.
| samstave wrote:
| This might sound stupid, but we need a "blockchain for bills"
| that keeps track of every single human who made edits and
| authored each and every law - and if it sucks, hold the actual
| human beings accountable for stupid laws.
|
| At least give them a public shaming, if we cant find them
| criminally responsible.
| arco1991 wrote:
| This..
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Johnson & Johnson created LTL in 2021 in a maneuver to shield
| itself from the talc litigation, but an earlier bankruptcy filing
| by the unit was challenged by the plaintiffs and dismissed this
| year by a U.S. appeals court, which ruled that a bankruptcy
| wasn't the right way to resolve the matter.
|
| I'm extremely glad this tactic failed.
| samstave wrote:
| >talctic
| jjulius wrote:
| I was downvoted and flagged for the same thing, so, at the
| risk of a Reddit-esque comment, have my upvote.
| jjulius wrote:
| Y'all need to chuckle more.
| samstave wrote:
| z\\\One of my favorite things about my love, is our love
| of 'chuckling
|
| One of the things which draw us closer to each other is
| how we are able to make each other chuckle with stupid
| jokes.
|
| Its a wonderful practice, you should give it a try.
|
| >>This comment brought to you by Wheeties, Titie Whitites
| and 1955
| pgodzin wrote:
| worth reading Matt Levine's explanation of this:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-l...
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Off topic but what AMC is doing is definitely fraud.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| Also wild is that this tactic won Allison Brown the "Litigator
| of the Year" award from American Lawyer. Truly a cursed
| profession in a lot of ways.
|
| https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2022/11/22/litigator-of-t...
| goldfeld wrote:
| I would have named the award "The Year of the Alligator".
| mjklin wrote:
| Of course alligators don't eat lawyers. Professional
| courtesy.
| staticautomatic wrote:
| Her performance as a trial lawyer in these cases has been
| nothing short of average. It's shocking that she managed to
| eek out any defense verdicts at all in the underlying
| litigation.
| musicale wrote:
| I'm unsure of the criteria for the reward, but it appears
| that they considered it an impressive effort to defend an
| unsympathetic client.
|
| The public benefit from presenting a vigorous defense in all
| cases (not just ones with sympathetic defendants) is to
| require the prosecution, as a matter of course, to actually
| prove their case in accordance with the law, something which
| should be required in a fair court system.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| People like this should be hung from a light post and beaten
| with sticks as a warning to the rest of them that this shit
| will not be tolerated.
| infamouscow wrote:
| That's how society handled snakes and demons for most of
| human history. It's arguable societal decline stems from
| moving away from this approach.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Be carefull what you wish for, I can see a few startup
| founders will be ranking high as candidates for the same
| treatment.
| makerofspoons wrote:
| This tactic is called a "Texas two-step", and it was used
| successfully by Georgia-Pacific in another asbestos related
| situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-
| step_bankruptcy
| jjulius wrote:
| [flagged]
| hammock wrote:
| Well, they were trying to make it work asbestos they could.
| [deleted]
| samstave wrote:
| Taint need your help
| HWR_14 wrote:
| This tactic wasn't as bad as you imply. J&J put the greater of
| $61.5 billion or the value of its consumer division (as
| determined when the paperwork was done) in LTL to cover claims
| and added itself as a creditor in last place. The idea was they
| would get back any value less than that after a result of the
| bankruptcy.
|
| In this case, they would have recovered over $50 billion from
| the bankrupt company after the suit was paid off (assuming this
| deal covers all parties).
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| Even Wikipedia clearly states:
|
| "The Texas two-step allows solvent companies to shield their
| assets from litigants using protections that are normally
| reserved for bankrupt companies"
|
| So I find your claims highly dubious that "wasn't as bad"
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You'd only go to that extra work and complexity if you
| believed it would potentially be beneficial. Presumably, they
| feared the possibility of a multi-hundred billion dollar
| verdict.
|
| That they didn't need the tactic in the end doesn't make it
| any less sleazy to have attempted it.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Like I said, I don't actually think it protects more money.
| It was pretty much secured by the value of the subsidiary
| responsible.
|
| On the contrary, doing that much extra work and complexity
| pays off mostly in organizational ways. Letting the current
| business operate without overly worrying about the progress
| of the trial (instead just having value removed by it),
| managing multiple plaintiffs, etc.
|
| And if the total amount of lawsuits exceeds the value of
| the company, it prevents the earlier plaintiffs from
| getting 100% and the last plaintiffs from getting 0% (which
| results in more expensive lawsuits).
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > It was pretty much secured by the value of the
| subsidiary responsible.
|
| Which is less than the value of all of J&J, which should
| _all_ be at risk for egregious misconduct.
|
| > And if the total amount of lawsuits exceeds the value
| of the company, it prevents the earlier plaintiffs from
| getting 100% and the last plaintiffs from getting 0%
| (which results in more expensive lawsuits).
|
| Sure, but it prevents _everyone_ from getting what they
| _should_ get from J &J in that scenario.
| lmm wrote:
| > Sure, but it prevents everyone from getting what they
| should get from J&J in that scenario.
|
| There's no way to give everyone what they're owed if
| there isn't enough money to go around. An orderly
| procedure is better than everyone rushing in with sharp
| elbows, and that's exactly why we have bankruptcy laws
| and courts - a system that works very well on the whole.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Letting the current business operate without overly
| worrying about the progress of the trial
|
| They should worry about it, that's the point of being put
| on trial.
|
| You seem to be missing a simple matter - reciprocity.
|
| These tactics are not available to me if I get sued by
| J&J, so why should they be available to J&J if they get
| sued by me?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| So I have an observation - when someone says we should be
| 'tough on crime', they never seem to be talking about
| corporate malfeasance and fraud. They always mean 'little
| people' crime.
|
| How can we make a campaign slogan specific to shit like this?
| Should we call it 'tough on some crime'? 'Tough on big
| crime?'
| jgust wrote:
| "Tough on white collar crime"
| vxNsr wrote:
| "Tough on white collar crime"
|
| It's already a slogan, there have been multiple
| presidential candidates in the last few years who made it a
| cornerstone of their campaign.
| hulahoof wrote:
| Tough on corporate crime.
| humaniania wrote:
| What about all of the people internationally who were impacted by
| this? If American companies are distributing dangerous products
| overseas they should be held to full account for that as well.
| jcampbell1 wrote:
| When did HackerNews get so hysterical. The evidence for talc
| causing ovarian cancer is extremely weak, maybe 5 additional
| cases per 100,000 women at worst. It makes no damn sense as a
| cervix only allows anything to head inside about 1 day per month.
| Are dudes getting testicular cancer from talc powder traveling up
| their pee hole? Gametes are like stem cells and prone to cancer
| forming mutations. It seems like all the undersexed white knights
| are ruling the attitudes of the day.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Desire to crucify any and all entities for even the tiniest bit
| of fault or risk is handicapping the US economy. So much of the
| US GDP is about avoiding liability and nailing someone with
| liability.
|
| See the recent thread about pharmacies having to pay huge fines
| for dispensing opioids as prescribed by a doctor. So now,
| pharmacies simply will not dispense them. People lose the
| freedom to get opioids for legitimate use, governments get
| plausible deniability they did something, and all for the
| political show of holding someone responsible.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| Do we know if this settlement is actually significant in
| incentivizing J&J to never pull this shit again?
| dylan604 wrote:
| The fact that they continue to sell the product in other
| countries suggests "no".
| justrealist wrote:
| Not really accurate. The problem was the contamination, not
| the Talc.
|
| They have changed the process to remove the asbestos
| contamination, but have gone a step further in the US, out of
| risk-aversion, to replace the Talc with cornstarch entirely.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| All talc is associated with asbestos. You can't remove it
| all, only choose mines with lesser proportion.
| fauxpause_ wrote:
| The product is not the problem. It is a useful product when
| it meets quality controls.
| vb-8448 wrote:
| It appears to be huge, but it will be stretched on 25 years, so
| it's not a big deal for them.
| Maximus9000 wrote:
| It looks like about 6 months of net income. That's pretty big
| but not huge.
|
| https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/JNJ/johnson-johnso...
| somenameforme wrote:
| This is terribly misleading. Net income is _income after
| expenses_. And the settlement is also being paid out over 25
| years, which further dilutes the impact. It is 9.3% of their
| revenue for the current year, spread out over 25 years! So
| that works out to 0.37% of their revenue per year. That 's
| already absurd, but now factor in inflation and revenue
| growth, and it's going to end up being a completely
| negligible figure per year.
|
| This would like if you earn 100k per year and after all of
| your rent/food/gas and other expenses were paid for, you had
| $10k left. And you were fined $5k, which you were able to
| payout at a rate of $200 per year for the next 25 years. For
| causing cancer and other diseases to tens of thousands of
| people.
| fauxpause_ wrote:
| That's huge.
| runarberg wrote:
| To put this in a more tangible context. A person getting
| 100 000 USD in annual income, being fined 50k for being
| criminally negligent, causing provable harm (say they
| injured several children by driving into a playground while
| drunk). 50k is big, but not huge.
| riffraff wrote:
| The analogy is slightly off tho, J&J does not only do
| talc, it's a huge conglomerate.
|
| IMO it's a sizeable enough amount to affect the company
| for a while, but I think it's unlikely it will prevent
| the same issues forever, simply because people in the
| company change and the underlying incentives are not
| influenced by a single event like this.
|
| Edit: what I meant is that it the analogy would be like
| "this dishonest bit I did for this marginal extra income
| screwed my whole income"
| fauxpause_ wrote:
| Yes, this is the right analysis.
|
| Baby powder is < 0.02% of JJ revenue. The entire consumer
| segment is only ~14B (again, in revenue).
|
| An 8B loss is very punishing for something that produced
| 0.02% of revenue (and probably wasn't high margin?)
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/12/17/talc-baby-powder-
| concern...
|
| Oldish source
| runarberg wrote:
| I think this is ignoring the _criminal_ part of criminal
| negligence. A crime was committed, innocent people got
| hurt. Justice isn't served by merely nullifying the
| venture in a capital sense. No, a true justice punishes
| the responsible by stripping away their freedom. In a
| corporate sense this means taking away all your corporate
| profits way beyond what your little venture would have
| given you, imprisoning the people responsible (including
| CEOs), and even disbanding the whole company if the crime
| is severe enough.
|
| I'll make another ill guided attempt at an analogy. If
| J&J was a criminal gang, and decided to venture into a
| new smuggling scheme. Then got caught, but as a
| punishment, they only had to pay a portion of their
| annual profits in a fine, but people would consider it
| huge because it was way bigger than what this smuggling
| scheme would have given them. Additionally no bosses were
| imprisoned.
|
| A true justice system shouldn't treat a malicious company
| any differently than a criminal gang.
| fauxpause_ wrote:
| > I'll make another ill guided attempt at an analogy. If
| J&J was a criminal gang, and decided to venture into a
| new smuggling scheme. Then got caught, but as a
| punishment, they only had to pay a portion of their
| annual profits in a fine, but people would consider it
| huge because it was way bigger than what this smuggling
| scheme would have given them. Additionally no bosses were
| imprisoned.
|
| I can't tell what you're trying to say. If people
| consider it huge, that means it's a good punishment, no?
|
| > I think this is ignoring the criminal part of criminal
| negligence. A crime was committed, innocent people got
| hurt. Justice isn't served by merely nullifying the
| venture in a capital sense. No, a true justice punishes
| the responsible by stripping away their freedom. In a
| corporate sense this means taking away all your corporate
| profits way beyond what your little venture would have
| given you, imprisoning the people responsible (including
| CEOs), and even disbanding the whole company if the crime
| is severe enough.
|
| Putting thousands of people out work because a small
| segment of a business did a bad thing isn't wise
| digdugdirk wrote:
| In this metaphor, its more like they injured several
| children by driving into a playground while drunk, then
| woke up the next day and did it again. And again. And
| again. And carried on doing so for years. While somehow
| profiting off their playground rampages.
|
| And then got one 50k fine a few years down the line.
| pessimizer wrote:
| As pointed out by a sibling comment, income is revenue,
| not profit. So it's as if a person who makes $100K got to
| write off the $85K they spent on rent and other expenses,
| and was fined half of the $15K they had left.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > fined half of the $15K they had left.
|
| And then allowed to pay it over 25 years during a period
| of very high inflation.
|
| A year from now that debt is considerably smaller in real
| terms, even if they pay zero.
| dmoy wrote:
| On the one hand yes, but it's hard to do a direct
| comparison between companies and people. J&J is 100k+
| people combined.
|
| Punitive damages for companies do feel out of wack
| though.
|
| If a person commits a felony like that, they're thrown in
| prison, prevented from making any income for years, and
| then (in the US at least) prevented from making any good
| income for the rest of their lives due to our draconian
| restrictions on ex felons.
|
| If a company does similar, then... the company itself is
| often just fine, especially if they're a big/rich enough
| company.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Income not profit?
|
| So if your yearly income is 200k, and I fine you 100k, that's
| no big deal?
| Atreiden wrote:
| Yearly income of 200k, so netting 140k after taxes/SS,
| which makes the fine equivalent to 70k?
|
| Paid over 25 years, so $2800/year?
|
| Factoring depreciation due to inflation @2%/year, you're at
| $55.5k total and an effective average annual payment of
| $2200/year or $183/month. On a salary of 200k.
|
| Yeah, I'm going to say that's not a big deal. That's less
| than the cheapest health insurance in the country.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| _Net_ income is also known as profit.
| fauxpause_ wrote:
| More than half a year's total profits
| etothepii wrote:
| J&J almost certainly don't have an insurance tower that goes
| anywhere near that. This a huge settlement. The biggest tower I
| know of is only $2b, but I don't know the whole market.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| I've never heard of the term "insurance tower" before. Does
| it just mean coverage? If you have a link to any good blog
| explaining that'd be great!
| yourapostasy wrote:
| An insurance tower is the total insurance package assembled
| by a policy holder between primary and excess insurance
| policies, as once explained to me by my broker. I gather
| that it is a different animal than re-insurance between
| insurance companies, as that is not policy-specific.
| refurb wrote:
| Pull what shit exactly?
|
| Talc naturally has asbestos in it. J&J tested their talc and
| said the levels were so small as to not be a health hazard.
|
| Lawyers brought civil suits claiming it was a health hazard.
|
| The courts agreed.
|
| The courts also agreed that breast implants cause cancer. Of
| course turns out they dont.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Pull what shit exactly?
|
| The bit where they decided a know carcinogen wasn't going to
| cause cancer. That's the shit they pulled.
| [deleted]
| hilbert42 wrote:
| We see repeatedly in such cases that employees, especially so
| executives, have known about the dangers of a product often for
| years and rather than take action to withdraw it they cover over
| and hide the facts--witness the tobacco industry.
|
| This problem could almost certainly be put to rest if not only
| the companies were held responsible but equally so their
| employees. If employees knew life imprisonment was a likely
| outcome for their 'silence' things would almost certainly change.
|
| This is obvious, what is not is why governments repeatedly fail
| to implement such legislation. That is, why is commerce so
| effective at being able to block governments from legislating
| thus?
| whiddershins wrote:
| I have a feeling talc probably wasn't actually bad for you.
| knodi123 wrote:
| "Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that asbestos lurked in its
| Baby Powder"
|
| https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
| web3-is-a-scam wrote:
| This settlement is a joke, clearly Big Pharma owns America.
| last_responder wrote:
| Big pharma owns John Deere?
| lostlogin wrote:
| That's Big Farmer.
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| [flagged]
| smabie wrote:
| What does current CEO have to do with any of this?
| shortrounddev wrote:
| Years ago I worked for a company that made a propaganda site for
| J&J about their Talc lawsuits
|
| https://www.factsabouttalc.com/
|
| The company liked to do a lot of performative charity events to
| convince ourselves that we weren't having a net negative impact
| on the world catering to some of the most vile corporate clients
| on the planet
| jacquesm wrote:
| Were you convinced?
| shortrounddev wrote:
| No, I developed an e-commerce site for blood diamond
| traffickers
| pbj1968 wrote:
| Right or wrong, when you're publishing websites like that
| you've already lost.
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| I'm curious how much they billed for that site because it looks
| pretty simple to create. I do hope they billed J&J for the
| maximum billable amount.
| carlmr wrote:
| And it's still online?
| shortrounddev wrote:
| "Years ago" means 3 years ago
| zerr wrote:
| Did they change the ingredients for the Talc? Because it is still
| on sale. From other brands as well.
| stametseater wrote:
| Talc is mined, not manufactured. They weren't adding asbestos
| to talc, they were mining and selling talc which was
| contaminated with asbestos because the asbestos and talc were
| coincident in the ground.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| Baby powder is usually corn starch now.
| teknolog wrote:
| Sort of makes you wonder if the corn lobby was funneling
| money to this lawsuit. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, but
| you never know.
| starkd wrote:
| Don't know if that is the case here, but that possibility
| cannot be discounted. It is a definite pattern for
| litigation attorneys. Studies can be easily manufactured.
| f6v wrote:
| > Studies can be easily manufactured.
|
| Studies can be replicated(or failed to do so) by a
| company the size of J&J.
| f6v wrote:
| > Sounds like a conspiracy theory, but you never know.
|
| When something "sounds" like it and you don't have any
| evidence, it IS a conspiracy theory.
| orra wrote:
| In the US! J&J Baby Powder in the UK is still talcum
| powder...
|
| Edit: I now see that'll be phased out, later this year
| https://www.jnj.com/johnson-johnson-consumer-health-to-
| trans...
| refurb wrote:
| I've been stocking up. Just don't be stupid and inhale it
| (which is bad for you asbestos or not asbestos).
|
| Corn starch as a replacement sucks compared to talc.
| Jeema101 wrote:
| I think the problem wasn't the talc itself, but that it was
| contaminated with asbestos in the process of mining the talc
| and turning it into talcum powder.
|
| So presumably it's been addressed through closer monitoring,
| but the article does say that they plan to phase out talcum
| powder worldwide and replace it with cornstarch powder.
|
| Edit: Apparently there are some studies which suggest talc
| itself could also be carcinogenic. I suppose this may be one
| reason why the issue is so confusing, because it's really 2
| issues in one: a) whether talc that's sold is contaminated with
| asbestos, and b) whether talc itself is carcinogenic.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| > but that it was contaminated with asbestos in the process
| of mining the talc and turning it into talcum powder.
|
| Allegedly. There's really good evidence that asbestos was
| making its way into he product in the 1970s, but evidence
| starts to get really thin starting in the 1990s. This is a
| settlement after all, so I wouldn't call it the final word on
| the subject.
|
| I think " b) whether talc itself is carcinogenic." is a much
| more interesting question, but probably hard to answer at
| this point.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| And cornstarch is great for bacteria/fungus growth. You can't
| win.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| You can just not put those things in babies.
| mikewarot wrote:
| When can we get real talc powder again? Corn starch really
| doesn't work. It's like modern Saran wrap, not anywhere as good
| as the original.
| jrsdav wrote:
| A lot of talc mining in the the Americas has basically stopped
| because of these lawsuits, and it seems very unlikely we'll
| ever see talc-based consumer products return to the shelves.
|
| As an aside, this has been a big deal for the ceramics
| industry, which uses talc in the production of clay bodies as
| well as glazes (think tile manufacturing -- DalTile uses so
| much talc that they recently bought their own mine to secure
| their supply).
|
| Talc is an excellent material[1] that has been in use for
| decades, but its availability to the public has typically been
| driven by the demands of mining done on behalf of cosmetic
| industries. Since these lawsuits began and the talc supply
| dried up, ceramic industry has been scrambling for the past ~3
| years to find alternatives with similar chemistry and working
| properties.
|
| The network effects of industry and mining are pretty
| interesting (and frustrating to hobbyists, when your favorite
| materials disappear!).
|
| - [1]: https://digitalfire.com/material/talc
| kpozin wrote:
| Isn't talc still used in pills and tablets (e.g. magnesium
| supplements, Tums, etc.)?
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| I didn't know Saran Wrap had changed. Why did they get rid of
| the original?
| mikewarot wrote:
| According to this[1], it changed in 2004 (in the US)
|
| More info about Saran wrap[2]. It's effectively 3000x more
| permeable to Oxygen that the old version.
|
| [1] https://uspackagingandwrapping.com/plastic-
| wrap-101.html#:~:....
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saran_(plastic)
| [deleted]
| wombatpm wrote:
| The Saran trade name was first owned by Dow Chemical for
| polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), along with other monomers.
| The formulation was changed to the less effective
| polyethylene in 2004 due to the chlorine content of PVDC.
| whiddershins wrote:
| wait, what? Chlorine isn't that bad a substance.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > When can we get real talc powder again?
|
| My guess is it'll never make a comeback. You can still get it,
| but maybe not in the formulation you used to get. I can't
| imagine too many companies willing to risk another class action
| just to make a few of us happier. Add it to the ever growing
| list of things we've had to give up on the altars of lawyers
| and social media.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Is there a criminal case in addition to the civil one? With the
| C-suites being prosecuted in person for hiding the truth they new
| and leading to the death of people, or is that wishful thinking?
| ch4s3 wrote:
| The actual evidence of asbestos in the products is from decades
| ago, and the current executives were not involved. There likely
| isn't enough evidence of contamination in the product since the
| 1990s to hold anyone criminally liable. Evidentiary standards
| in civil cases are FAR lower.
| somenameforme wrote:
| For context Johnson and Johnson's total revenue for 2022 was
| $94.94 billion [1], and this settlement is to be paid out over 25
| years. So the total cost to them is about 1.3 days of revenue per
| year at their current revenue levels. Factor in inflation and
| growth, and it'll end up being a few hours of revenue per year.
|
| More hard hitting justice for corporate malfeasance.
|
| [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_&_Johnson
| lumb63 wrote:
| It's sad to me that situations where companies cause negative
| outcomes for people are paid for by fees and are labeled "the
| cost of doing business". I saw a post here the other day that
| said that, rather than releasing products and later the burden
| be on others to prove they are unsafe, the burden should be on
| companies to ensure their products are safe prior to releasing
| them to the public. Money does not solve issues; you can
| compensate people for the cost of their cancer treatments,
| etc., but I'm sure they'd probably rather never have had cancer
| to begin with. The wrong can't be retroactively undone.
| somenameforme wrote:
| I think the simpler solution is to start holding the people
| in charge of the companies accountable for the actions they
| greenlight and continue to approve.
|
| Johnson and Johnson knew their product had asbestos in it. It
| seems absurd they're not facing criminal charges. If I, as an
| individual, sold an asbestos tainted powder to people that
| resulted in deaths and cancer then there's a very good chance
| that I'd be spending the rest of my life in prison, even if I
| didn't knowingly do so. But if I do it as a massive global
| corporation, on a far wider scale, and with full knowledge of
| what I'm doing, my penalty is... nothing? I mean literally
| they're not even facing criminal charges, this was a civil
| suit. It just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and the
| stupidity of it all is enough to make one angry.
| lumb63 wrote:
| I don't disagree with you; I think personal liability is in
| order in some situations, too (see: 2008 subprime mortgage
| crisis). However, again, these actions attempt to equalize
| after the fact. I suppose they also disincentivize
| beforehand. But why stop at disincentivizing the behavior,
| which requires relying on people to be rational actors, and
| instead not allow the behavior at all?
|
| We have organizations like the FDA, etc., to ensure that
| the food and drugs we put in our bodies are safe. The
| reality is the gamut of technologies, products, and
| environments that impact our health are far more broad than
| "food and drug"; why not regulate them the same way?
| ramblenode wrote:
| > rather than releasing products and later the burden be on
| others to prove they are unsafe, the burden should be on
| companies to ensure their products are safe prior to
| releasing them to the public.
|
| I personally agree with the precautionary principle and think
| there should be stricter requirements for certain classes of
| new products, but the best solution is probably some type of
| compromise based on level of newness and possible danger.
|
| The core problem is the "unknown unknown". There's no upper
| limit to how much testing you should do to ensure a product
| is safe because the space of possible dangers is nearly
| infinite. So any policy will be a balancing act of false
| positives and false negatives and what levels of each are
| tolerable. I think this is the proper question and it is not
| an easy one to answer.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| > the burden should be on companies to ensure their products
| are safe prior to releasing them to the public
|
| I don't know if this policy would make the world a better
| place. There are so many life saving or life improving
| technologies that would be delayed because of the burden of
| proving them to be "safe"
| simmerup wrote:
| > the burden should be on companies to ensure their products
| are safe prior to releasing them to the public
|
| I suspect big companies would love to stifle the competition
| from small competitors who can't afford to sink money into
| this type of analysis
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Sounds good to me, stifle away. Move fast and break things
| doesn't fit in with consumer safety.
| azemetre wrote:
| Really, is this the argument you want to actually make?
| That we shouldn't regulate things that people put on/into
| their body because we might hurt the "little guy?"
|
| Mind you I've been hearing about this mythical "little guy"
| that massive multinational corporations love to trot out
| when it comes to increasing regulations or taxes against
| them but over the course of my lifetime all I've seen is a
| massive increase in power and consolidation from these
| companies.
|
| It's so odd realizing you live in a dystopian cyberpunk
| future without the pretty trinkets to go along with it.
| samstave wrote:
| >>" _dystopian cyberpunk future_ "
|
| This is the future all of us kids from the 1970s and
| 1980s _BUILT_ on the premise of _" wouldnt it be cool
| if...."_ -- We (and I am personally guilty, as are many
| HNers, of facilitating the "wouldnt it be cool if
| Cyberpunk tropes were reality?"
|
| I helped build spying (marketing) infra, sentiment
| measures etc...
|
| But the "little guy" that bigPharma preys upon is the
| 'patient' J&J needs corporate capital punishment, because
| this isnt the first time or only incident of them causing
| negative outcomes for profit (recall their tainted
| vaccines?)
| renewiltord wrote:
| Why aren't there consumer products unions that certify
| products as safe ? That way, the people who care can get the
| certified product, and the rest can accept risk.
|
| It won't work for something like cigarettes where the risk is
| external but if the risk is to you, then you can manage it
| this way.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| There are, such as Underwriters Laboratories. But the human
| body is such a complex machine that it's infeasible to do
| the experiments necessary to provide the kinds of
| guarantees that one would desire. Many effects have
| multiple causes and can show up decades later.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Ah, so we should label the products with the appropriate
| certification and if it is missing, consumers should
| choose their position on the risk-reward curve.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic, or just
| describing how life works.
| anfilt wrote:
| Thing is people have been using talcum powder for many many
| centuries. It's just ground up rock... The thing is when
| you gather something from nature there will be naturally
| contamination. The claim is about asbestos being in the
| talc powder which is also a rock...
|
| The thing is asbestos can occur naturally in and dirt all
| around the world. There are some places even in the US
| where dust storms are more dangerous just because this
| fact. Here's just a short memo about naturally occurring
| asbestos. https://ncceh.ca/sites/default/files/Naturally_oc
| curring_asb...
|
| I am not saying J&J should get off scotch free if they knew
| some sources of talc they were using had high levels of
| asbestos. However, I am gonna say it's not surprising that
| there may be some contamination. Moreover that's just one
| form of natural occurring contamination. There other
| minerals that naturally occur that also are unwanted
| commitments ranging from heavy metals and so forth. What
| matters is are the contaminants reasonable low for a
| naturally sourced product since it's not possible to have
| zero contamination.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| What needs to change is the nature of the punishment. As long
| as it's monetary and only monetary, the punishment is
| negligible.
|
| Put one or two executives in jail and things will look
| different. Rob a bank, you go to jail. Rob people of their
| lives and you keep your well paid job and your company get
| slapped on the wrist.
|
| Ultimately, the fines are paid by consumers. But jail time?
| That's a payment made by the guilty.
| morpheuskafka wrote:
| Wouldn't it make more sense to compare it to the revenue from
| talc sales specifically, or maybe that business unit, and not
| the whole conglomerate?
| missedthecue wrote:
| Using revenue doesn't make sense here, because the level of
| "hurt" would vary wildly if they had 90% margins or 0.9%
| margins.
|
| In their case, $9 billion wipes out about three years of
| profit.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| If you base it off profit, I can just adjust any companies
| profit down to zero with a shell company.
| marricks wrote:
| "Three years of profit" over 25 years, not accounting for
| inflation.
|
| Perhaps the first comment was too harsh but let's not be
| overly generous.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _"Three years of profit" over 25 years, not accounting
| for inflation_
|
| It looks like an $8.9bn settlement after $7.4bn in
| litigation expenses [1]. I would guess that is a
| substantial portion of J&J's total profits from talc-based
| products, inflation adjusted. Were that product an
| independent company, this would have bankrupted it. That's
| decent deterrence.
|
| [1] https://njbiz.com/jj-offers-8-9b-to-settle-claims-talc-
| produ...
| runarberg wrote:
| I'm not happy with a company causing provable harm with
| criminal negligence simply being deterred from doing it
| again. No, I want justice, I want them to be punished,
| because I want to see justice. I want _all_ their profits
| taken away from them, and possibly even more.
|
| I'm not even convinced this is actually a good
| deterrence. Companies have been criminally negligent
| since the birth of capitalism. They have caused
| immeasurable harm in multiple schemes in many ill guided
| attempts of making more and more money. These companies
| have gotten several fines, some CEOs have even been
| imprisoned, others have been forced into bankruptcy, and
| yet we see companies being criminally negligent, causing
| more harm, starting new malicious schemes, again and
| again. If these fines are supposed to be a deterrence,
| they are obviously not working.
| vxNsr wrote:
| I agree that we should find a better deterrence, but can
| we cool it with blaming "capitalism"? Is socialism some
| new drug that will suddenly eradicate selfishness? Has
| there ever been a documented case of a society that went
| socialist and no one did anything selfish? The problem
| isn't the system, it's the people.
|
| There is no amount of "process improvement" that is gonna
| change basic human nature.
| goldfeld wrote:
| If they spent such an inordinate amount trying to escape,
| that is not part of deterrence, it is a gamble that big
| boys can take and they took and it didn't go as well.
| That gamble, or at least a good part of 7 billion, is
| their own fault and doing and not an external punishment,
| and importantly, doesn't absolve the final punishment,
| not even morally. Even more crucial, that money went to
| the dirtiest type of rich law firms (it is kind of an
| offence on its own!) and not to settling the damages at
| all.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _spent such an inordinate amount trying to escape, that
| is not part of deterrence, it is a gamble that big boys
| can take_
|
| You're claiming a tougher penalty would be fought less
| vigorously?
| vxNsr wrote:
| If you screw up you should stand up and take
| responsibility over that screw up. Not shy away and try
| to claim innocence. Honestly there should be a punishment
| on top of the actual penalty for a company that is proven
| to have intentionally done something like this.
|
| If you know you screwed up and instead of taking
| ownership you play the blame game, if you lose the
| lawsuit, you should be responsible not just for the
| actual damages but also you should be required to payout
| 100% of your own lawyer fees to the defendant as well.
| goldfeld wrote:
| No, but it is always a moral decision somewhere to fight
| vigorously, and it is money thrown not at making things
| right. Oh but it is always done, it is routine, etc.
| Well? If a company is built to act, on behalf of board,
| as selfish as actually spending as much with lawyers (of
| course, because they want to make their point and hope to
| set a precedent that says: executives, do not refrain to
| do evil for a good buck! we can deal with that crapp
| later--and should we as a society find it okay that
| corporate america works like that, or can work like
| that?) as the amount they were finally charged, then we
| can reason that if they spent that much (almost the full
| penalty amount!) on a gamble, then the amount is not
| really a worthy punishment at all! Seen another way,
| almost as much cash flowed to faceless lawyer gentry as
| to making up for the thousands who had cancer! And is
| this supposed to be a healthcare company today? J&J
| laughs at the face of law-abiding society who is
| apparently powerless to deter, that is my thinking.
| goldfeld wrote:
| Well, you know I really like your username!
| chadash wrote:
| The overall point holds, but this is more like 0.75 years of
| profit, or less ($424B market cap x 2.76% dividend yield is a
| basic calculation, but there's all sorts of accounting
| reasons why this might underestimate actual profit).
| missedthecue wrote:
| They've had a boost in recent years from COVID vaccines
| which will not be material over the coming years.
| cma wrote:
| How much goes to lawyers?
| delecti wrote:
| Wouldn't a company like J&J have lawyers on retainer? If
| so, then their salary is already factored into their
| baseline annual costs.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| They would likely engage outside counsel for something
| like this.
| cma wrote:
| Isn't the biggest lawyer payout likely going to the
| plaintiffs' laywers?
| celestialcheese wrote:
| > An annual filing with the SEC shows that J&J paid $7.4
| billion in litigation expenses between 2020 and 2021,
| with the majority spent on legal costs related to talc
| claims.
|
| https://njbiz.com/jj-offers-8-9b-to-settle-claims-talc-
| produ...
|
| This is in addition to the settlement deal discussed
| here.
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| Profit is an accounting illusion. Use free cash flow to see
| reality.
| somenameforme wrote:
| First off, no it doesn't. Their profit for 2022 is $18
| billion. This is less than half of one year of _profit_ even,
| again spread out over 25 years. During which inflation +
| revenue growth will further dilute it. They even have $23
| billion cash on hand. [1] I 'd also add income is a regularly
| gamed metric for tax avoidance purposes.
|
| But really the whole point here is that without painful
| penalties, there is no deterrence whatsoever. Seeing
| 'megacorp knowingly sold asbestos tainted product for
| decades' is not even going to elicit a 'omg I can't believe
| it' from anybody not born yesterday. Nor will the fact that
| they faced a civil penalty that was but the mildest of prods
| on the wrist, and 0 criminal penalties. We seemingly have a
| government completely incapable of holding large corporations
| accountable for their actions. And that is _seriously_ not
| normal, nor acceptable.
|
| [1] - https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/JNJ/johnson-
| johnso...
| refurb wrote:
| You realize J&J is a massive company with a huge range of
| products?
|
| Imagine if Google was fined 50% of a year's revenue because
| of Google Voice.
|
| That's a massive penalty by any measure.
| 93po wrote:
| If I gave 40,000 people cancer as an individual and
| killed several thousands of people as a result, I
| wouldn't lose 3 years of disposal income. I would lose
| all of it, forever, as I sit and rot in prison for the
| rest of my life.
|
| This is the sort of punishment we need for corporations.
| nradov wrote:
| That's not how the system works. It would be very
| difficult to convict you as an individual of a felony
| that would send you to prison. The burden of proof in
| criminal cases is much higher.
|
| Even if you were found liable in civil court you wouldn't
| lose all of your income forever. You would be able to
| declare personal bankruptcy and clear the debt.
| felipemnoa wrote:
| >>Even if you were found liable in civil court you
| wouldn't lose all of your income forever. You would be
| able to declare personal bankruptcy and clear the debt.
|
| I guess it depends.
|
| From the net:
|
| "Instances in which a court ordered judgment won't be
| overridden by bankruptcy include debts related to:
|
| Student loans
|
| Any debt owed to the government, including taxes and
| fines
|
| Court ordered awards related to criminal proceedings"
| nradov wrote:
| None of that is relevant. This case is not a criminal
| proceeding. Civil court judgments can generally be
| cleared in bankruptcy.
| za3faran wrote:
| They should pierce the corporate veil and go after any
| individuals who had personal involvement in the matter
| while being fully aware of what the consequences of their
| actions were. That way, the livelihood of other employees
| who have no say in the matter is not affected, and only
| those who directly participated are held accountable.
| themitigating wrote:
| I agree with this and that included people who have
| retired. Find the people that knew and make them pay with
| jail time and a financial punishment
| nradov wrote:
| Which specific criminal law do you think they have
| violated? Please provide a citation to applicable state
| or federal criminal code. What they did was shitty, but
| I'm skeptical whether it would be possible for
| prosecutors to win a criminal conviction.
| refurb wrote:
| 40,000 people got cancer from talc? Please link the
| research paper that shows that.
|
| Everybody thinks personal injury lawyers are slimy but
| then quotes their "data" like it was proven fact.
| 93po wrote:
| 40,000 people claimed it did and followed through with
| legal action. Sure, maybe only a percentage of them
| actually got it from talc. But globally, what percent of
| people who _did_ get cancer from talc actually sue? Also
| likely a low percentage.
| westpfelia wrote:
| What do you think the lawsuit was about? You think J&J is
| being forced to pay the measly 8.9 billion just because
| they want this to go away? 40,000 people got cancer that
| we know of. People should be in jail.
| smabie wrote:
| Which people?
| _a_a_a_ wrote:
| Where is this figure given? I can't see it (may have
| skipped over it accidentally)
| freeone3000 wrote:
| It is the number of members in the class.
| themitigating wrote:
| Lawyers don't create the data.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Let's consider, for a moment, that they paid nine billion
| (with a B) as a settlement because they thought that it
| would be cheaper than the outcome of fully litigating it.
| Which is to say, $9B was the cheaper option.
|
| Regardless of the numbers, for that to be true, you've
| got to be pretty convinced you've fucked up _really
| hard_.
| thfuran wrote:
| No, you just have to be convinced that there's a pretty
| good chance that a jury can be convinced that you need to
| pay for what you did.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Clearly J&J was convinced
| webdood90 wrote:
| again I ask, why do people shill for corporations?
| refurb wrote:
| Who is shilling? The data suggesting asbestos in talc is
| a real health hazard is tenuous at best.
|
| A bunch of class action lawyers just made $30B dollars.
| So we know they're happy either way.
|
| I thought HN followed tge sxience?
| lakecresva wrote:
| Who are you even responding to? No one's arguing the
| science, they're talking about the size of the settlement
| relative to the corporation's financials.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > Who is shilling? The data suggesting asbestos in talc
| is a real health hazard is tenuous at best.
|
| If you really believe that preposterous claim, put
| "asbestos" on the package and see how many people buy it.
| You sails will fall off a cliff. All your other products
| will be treated like they are radioactive too.
|
| You want free market? That's free market for you. If you
| lie about the product, you are defrauding the customer.
|
| But somehow fraud only ever sends the little people to
| jail.
| gnicholas wrote:
| > _A bunch of class action lawyers just made $30B
| dollars._
|
| Where is this number coming from? The listed settlement
| amount is an order of magnitude less than this, and
| lawyers typically get some percentage (15-30?), which has
| to be approved by the court. I'm not saying they didn't
| make a lot of money here (and for full disclosure, I used
| to be a lawyer), but I'm not seeing how they raked in
| tens of billions.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| J&J should be punitively punished for knowing about
| asbestos in their product and hiding it from the public.
| Whether or not anyone died as a result, corporations
| should not be allowed to be malfeasant and get away with
| it because only a small number of people were provably
| harmed. Corporations should have to behave like the cops
| are watching them.
| triyambakam wrote:
| If Google Voice killed people then yeah, that'd be fair.
| dzader wrote:
| Imagine if google was knowingly killing people with
| google voice for decades
| arrosenberg wrote:
| I would imagine Google as a corporation would be more
| careful about giving people cancer. "We are too big for
| accountability" has been a bad idea every time it has
| been used in America.
| evilduck wrote:
| More importantly, Google's competitors would also be more
| careful about it too.
|
| Kill a giant after it steps on people and other giants
| will learn to tiptoe.
| themitigating wrote:
| Come on, revenue is not profit.
| eternalban wrote:
| Curious as to what laws shield the executives of these
| companies from facing criminal charges. Any lawyers in the
| house? Where is the line legally drawn?
| paulpauper wrote:
| Which is why the stock price is up on this news and positive
| over the past 5 years despite this lawsuit. it's a rounding
| error
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Revenue, as opposed to profit, seems like a particularly poor
| metric. But better still is going to be market cap. Their cap
| is ~$400 billion. So this might be a little over 2.25% of the
| value of a giant corporation. Maybe halve that because of the
| time value of money. It seems extremely doubtful the talcum
| powder business never accounted for more than 1% of the value
| of the company, so this is probably a pretty big fine.
| goldfeld wrote:
| Does it matter the portion of the smaller company? The parent
| company is responsible for its actions, and that is enough. A
| giant corporation that does outright damage (and is caught
| out) should get a sentence as to be repressed in the behavior
| so executives think twice next time, that is what matters. 2%
| of value or possibly less is hardly a threatening indictment.
| Why should not a company be brought to its knees? You know,
| the same as citizens are? There are jobs and families? So are
| there on the side of damaged parties, generally. And it has
| competitors who can do the company's part just as well as
| they can.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| If you're talking about compensatory damages, the size of
| the talc business doesn't matter. J&J has to make people
| whole.
|
| If you're talking about punitive damages, the size matters.
| Making sure that the action is non-profitable is important.
| But at the same time, you can only expect so much oversight
| of small parts of a company.
|
| 2% of the net worth of a Fortune 50 company is _not_ a
| small fine.
|
| > Why should not a company be brought to its knees? You
| know, the same as citizens are?
|
| I'd flip this question around. Why should citizens be
| brought to their knees? But often, they are not. Certainly
| not with civil actions.
| goldfeld wrote:
| Well, one way citizens are brought to their knees is
| precisely because big cos have much unchecked power,
| directly or indirectly through the state (lobbying and
| bribe corruption.)
| Supermancho wrote:
| > 2% of the net worth of a Fortune 50 company is not a
| small fine.
|
| That's your opinion and worth as much as any other.
| Second, it isn't even 2% amortized, which compounds the
| lack of impact.
|
| The people who died over this are dead and aren't getting
| paid, so these kind of small payouts are minimal
| incidental damage.
| tomcam wrote:
| You cynic. Because look how many people were sent to prison and
| did hard time... oh. Wait a minute...
| goldfeld wrote:
| In Who Can Be Happy and Free in Russia?, a dissenting peasant
| has to be lashed out by the barin's command, who thinks he is
| still landed gentry but in reality is being fooled by the
| compassionate and loyal to the bone downtrodden peasants, who
| rather own their lands now but keep playing a farce. The
| community leader calls the dissenting peasant to a room within
| earshot of the barin, gives him as much vodka as his morals
| need as to ask him to yell loudly while the leader makes
| beating noises and says nasty things to him. The peasant
| commits suicide soon after in the story.
| geoah wrote:
| https://archive.ph/MLG64
| than3 wrote:
| This does nothing to punish the corporate malfeasance of acting
| as an expert for the government, knowing better, and then lying
| by recommending less effective testing to preserve and maximize
| your own profits over the safety of every citizen using your
| products for decades.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-05 23:01 UTC)