Johnson and Johnson, which produces and markets Johnson's Baby Powder, had known for years that the powder, made from talc,

significantly increases the risk of ovarian cancer in women who use the talc, or talcum baby powder, for feminine hygiene. Talc,

which is mined by Johnson and Johnson suppliers in underground deposits in New England, is sometimes laced with amphibole and

chrysotile--better known as asbestos fibers. These asbestos fibers grow alongside of talc like weeds in an underground garden

making it difficult to sort the fibers from the talc deposits because the fibers are small and closely resemble talc. Major studies have

found asbestos to be carcinogenic (i.e., producing or tending to produce cancer) even in small doses.

Read the brief narrative

below and answer the following questions. First, identify the "public interest" being adversely impacted. And, second,

briefly discuss three strategies Johnson and Johnson, as a polity actor, used to allow the company to continue to sell the

baby powder despite knowing that their powder formulations had traces of asbestos which increased the risk of cancer in

humans.

Johnson and Johnson: Profits Over Regulation

In 1973, at the request of the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit focusing on human health, the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) proposed a rule to regulate asbestos in cosmetics. The proposed rule required talc to be *...at least 99.9

percent free of asbestos fibers." In addition, the proposed rule considered having companies provide ingredient statements. After

hearing about the proposed ruling by FDA, Johnson and Johnson, along with other major cosmetics companies like Avon and

Colgate-Palmolive, created a trade organization called Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA) comprised of attorneys

representing each company trained in lobbying and regulation research to resist the proposed standard. The CTFA attacked the

FDA proposed ruling as "...discriminatory..." and argued the FDA's proposed testing method behind the rule *..results in both false-

positive and false-negative..." The CTFA was willing to challenge the FDA and advocate for a less stringent methodology for

detecting asbestos since many members of the trade organization felt that the FDA would not take legal action because the agency

had neither the financial resources nor the staff to pursue matters ensuring that the industry would have airtight cases in scientific

matters. At the same time, the CTFA hired scientists to challenge any additional research by the FDA, or independent research body,

that detected asbestos in talc and to create confusion about the definition of talc. The trade group also hired additional attorneys

who forced independent researchers who found asbestos in talc to redact their statements. In the end, the CTFA arqued to the FDA

and Congress that manufacturers like Johnson and Johnson should monitor the safety of their own products through self-regulation

Today, Johnson and Johnson is not legally required to test their products for safety before selling them, the company does not have

to provide ingredient standards, and the company does not have to produce safety records or report adverse effects, which includes cancer. Please dont make your response too long. can you please keep it very short