Scientists don’t publish “alarmist claims without data”. They publish scientific research which is reviewed by their peers and then built on or contradicted as needed. Scientists can’t just make stuff up - their papers are reviewed before they’re published and if they write crap, it doesn’t pass review. There have been several studies since the first paper on this so the link seems fairly robust.

Had you read the article and understood how science works, you’d have learnt that the the patients all had a form of cancer caused by asbestos, and their only exposure was via talc. You’d have also learnt that courts had already upheld the findings in previous litigation with expert testimony (this is where courts listen to scientists who provide evidence to support or refute the claims being made). So at this current stage there’s little doubt that the science is right, both in the scientific literature and in law (though of course there may be a missing piece of information that has not yet come to light).

Finally, I’d like to comment on your absurd remark “sometimes… was found to cause cancer”. Asbestos is an extremely dangerous carcinogen (thing that causes cancer), which is why we regulate it nowadays. The cancers are awful and often kill within 12 months of onset. It is frankly inhuman to suggest that any contamination of a product would be acceptable unless you’re the only one volunteering to die a horrible death.

If you’re not going to read the article or show any compassion for fellow humans then maybe don’t comment and let the mature adults discuss the issues instead.

Nestle (as of last year’s financial returns) owns 20% of L’Oreal (L’Oreal details on last share sale, Nestle statement of its relationship with L’Oreal). They reduced their holdings a couple of years ago (down from 23%) but at 20% they’re still one of the more significant L’Oreal shareholders (though not the largest at L’Oreal).

The Nestle boycott wasn’t founded due to exploitation of employees, unions, etc. They’re shitty and do all that stuff (and far more). But the boycott was specifically founded (in the 1970s) due to their decision to relentlessly market baby formula to vulnerable mothers, particularly in less developed countries, often in times of famine or hardship. They knowingly caused health problems in infants (who of course then grew into adults with health problems), probably caused many infant deaths, and pushed families into poverty (with all the consequences of that), for profit. 50 years later we’re still dealing with the consequences of their immoral marketing (which has never really stopped, they just change the messaging in order to comply with relevant laws, which are too weak).

I’d boycott them just for that, but they’re also the corporation who in both U.S. and European hearings has argued that water isn’t a human right and pushed to privatise community resources, at a time when water scarcity is one of the main long-term threats to many countries, including the U.S. and many European countries.

Other companies do this stuff too, but generally speaking they’ve done it for less time and are less brazen about it.

Maybe stop eating shampoo then. (= They partly own L’Oréal, and by extension all the L’Oréal brands: Garnier, Maybelline, Vichy, Biotherm, etc.)

To your actual point though: A) that depends on which country you live in, given that their products are manufactured differently in each country/region. B) it does also depend on what brand you’re referring to. I find it highly unlikely you dislike EVERYTHING in the Nestle machine. Hot Pockets? Perrier water? Nerds? Smarties??