Johnson & Johnson's stock slammed after report it knew of asbestos in baby powder
Shares of Johnson & Johnson tumbled Friday, after a Reuters report that the drug and consumer-products company knew for decades that its baby talcum powder was contaminated with asbestos, a known carcinogen, that is alleged to have caused cancer in thousands of its customers.
The stock ended 10% lower on Friday, marking its largest one-day percentage decline in 16 years and lowest close in nearly four months, according to FactSet data. It led decliners on the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 on the day, and accounted for about 101 points of the Dow's 497-point loss.
[...] Reuters said an examination of internal company memos and other documents found the New Jersey–based company was aware of the presence of small amounts of asbestos in its products from as early as 1971 but failed to disclose that fact to regulators or to the general public.
Reuters stands by J&J report, says it was based 'entirely' on Johnson & Johnson documents
Reuters reporter Lisa Girion stands by her report that Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that asbestos was in its baby powder. "Our report on the fact that J&J was aware of small amounts of asbestos in its talc, in its baby power, in the ore that it mined in Vermont to make baby power, is based entirely on their documents," Girion told CNBC's "Power Lunch" on Friday.
The Reuters story sent J&J shares down 9 percent on Friday and prompted a response from the health-care company that called the article "one-sided, false and inflammatory." "Simply put, the Reuters story is an absurd conspiracy theory, in that it apparently has spanned over 40 years, orchestrated among generations of global regulators, the world's foremost scientists and universities, leading independent labs, and J&J employees themselves," the company said in a statement.
See also: Asbestos Opens New Legal Front in Battle Over Johnson's Baby Powder
Those J&J Baby-Powder Lawsuits Aren't Going Away
Johnson & Johnson loses $39.8 billion in market value in one day after report claims it knew about asbestos in its baby powder
Previously: The Baby Powder Trials: How Courts Deal with Inconclusive Science
Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $417m in Latest Talc Cancer Case
$417 Million Talc Cancer Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson Tossed Out
Johnson & Johnson Loses New Jersey Talc Cancer Case
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hartree on Monday December 17 2018, @06:30AM (2 children)
"with even a single exposure increasing cancer risk significantly"
Dose of what size?
There are lots of things that with a single large enough dose will increase risk measurably. NDMA, for example. However it's present in trace amounts in cooked foods.
What constitutes a risk raising dose?
You've almost certainly been exposed to "some" asbestos. Almost everyone has in small quantities. What reduction in risk do you expect from getting rid of that exposure?
Sorry to pick on you, but the no threshold model for risk and assigning no safe limit when there is a background level that nearly everyone is exposed to doesn't seem to me to be very realistic. If you assign risk to a given level with no observable harm from that level, how do you say that anything is safe?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 17 2018, @11:19AM (1 child)
Indeed, as this story has been circulating in one form or another for a while, I've found myself in the weird position of having to say things along the lines of 'it contains asbestos, so what?, go to the public park opposite my house, dig a hole, run the 'spoil' through your fingers...congratulations, you've just exposed yourself to more asbestos than you'll ever get from talcum powder' 'went to school/college/university and studied in a building erected between the 1890's through to the 1980's?....congratulations, you've been exposed to more asbestos than you'll ever get from talcum powder..' etc. etc.
The best laugh I've had with this one?, sitting in a kitchen lovingly fitted out with granite work surfaces, listening to someone go on about how dare J&J expose everyone to a carcinogen...yes, I had to drop the 'R' word as I needed to make a point about the small potential risks that we all take in the course of our everyday lives, even extending to things like the innocuous choice of materials we make for work surfaces in our kitchens.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Wednesday December 26 2018, @01:47AM
while it's true that many urban environments have significant asbestos pollution, this does not mean that we should accept a company distributing even trace amounts of asbestos. There's agood public health reason for the complete phasing out of asbestos in insulation, building materials and brake linings. Of course it's hard to remove once in the environment but mostly it's not in inhalable form unless disturbed. Baby powder is a whole different deal, it's great at creating clouds of material.
There really is a fundamental difference with exposure to materials that embed themselves in biological tissue, you're effectively multiplying the exposure by the rest of that person's lifetime. Most pollutants move into and then out of the body. Asbestos, unfortunately tends to lodge and stay immobile, radioactive particles which are inhaled (esp plutonium) are another example of pollutants which cause long term damage above amd beyond their single exposure risk estimate.