SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 17 2018, @05:44PM
Lead was a bad one, but you have to roll back to when lead was really introduced into the various industries... the 1920s were a VERY different time than today, and that's the kind of world that started building internal combustion engines that "ran better" with lead in the fuel. Even in the 1950s, the solution to pollution was still dilution. Even in the 1990s when Dade county and many other metro areas were instituting vapor recovery devices on automotive fueling pumps, environmentally conscious Monroe county (the Florida keys) passed on the initiative because of their long-thin geography where the vapors released would rapidly dissipate - at least that was the front-line explanation, there's also the fact that pleasure boats use more gasoline in the Florida keys than automobiles and that vapor recovery from many yachts' fuel tanks would also recover crap you don't want to have to deal with in your fuel...
Al Gore's Grandfather may have predicted CO2 based global warming in 1922, but the bulk of society wasn't primed to listen at that point. On a slight tangent, I remember some movie from the 1960s where a little girl is crying about all the baby seals being clubbed to death, but the narrator reassures her in a patronizing tone that nature replenishes their numbers and there are always more next year. That was the mindset that a lot of the fools who are still in power grew up in, and they're never going to unlearn it.
Clearly, you don't relate to these people. A primer outline:
1. you need money to survive
2. you need more money than 1. to attract a mate and support your offspring
3. you need more money than 2. to compete for status, better mating opportunities, and control of limited resources
N. you need more money than N-1. to compete for status, better mating opportunities, and control of limited resources
Whatever N you are at, there's always an N+1 who bought that private island, or congressman that you wanted for your own purposes. In BP corporate land, the money is very much required to continue to influence legislation that provides them a secure profitable environment in which to operate their enterprise, including throwing enough cash off to all the people they care about to keep them fat, happy, and far up the N scale.
🌻🌻 [google.com]