this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
67 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

9389 readers
411 users here now

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago
[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Bleed the bastards dry! Financially speaking.

[–] 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

This is after a decade of litigation. They probably already made 10x more.

[–] the_wizard_of_0Z@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago
[–] RejZoR@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Is talc itself the issue? Isn't talc still being used widely in cosmetics?

[–] czarcasm@kbin.earth 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes talc. And the problem is that talc gets contaminated with Asbestos. J&J knew they were using contaminated talc. There is a documentary on this investigation. I boycotted J&J years ago.

[–] leftOverLife@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What's the name of this documentary, if you remember?

[–] czarcasm@kbin.earth 1 points 1 day ago

I don't recall the exact one, but "The Weekly" had an episode in their first season about it and Bloomberg did a show on it. YouTube has a few of these, maybe not full episodes.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Talc is very similar to asbestos, chemically speaking, so they're often found in veins right next to each other. Meaning talc mining needs to spend resources to remove any asbestos. More profitable to not to, though, thus the successful lawsuit.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

No. It's talc contaminated with asbestos.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago
[–] hexdream@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

They couldn't of course pool their payouts to pay for an ongoing international advertising campaign exposing what happened. That would just be a horrible idea...