Parents are always looking to choose the safest alternatives for their children. This article provides interesting insight into ingredients found in commonly used baby products:
A coalition of health, environmental and consumer groups is demanding that health products giant Johnson & Johnson remove tiny amounts of two chemicals suspected of causing cancer from its Johnson’s Baby Shampoo and other products.
The chemicals in question are 1,4-dioxane, a byproduct of the manufacturing process, and the preservative formaldehyde, which is slowly released by a chemical called Quaternium-15 to kill bacteria. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde both are probable human carcinogens; formaldehyde also is a skin, eye and respiratory irritant.
“There’s really no excuse for a baby shampoo marketed as the No. 1 choice of hospitals to contain chemicals suspected of causing cancer,” Lisa Archer, the campaign’s national coordinator, told The Associated Press in an interview.
Tests by an independent laboratory commissioned by the campaign, Analytical Sciences of Petaluma, Calif., found Johnson’s baby shampoo had 210 parts per million of formaldehyde, and about two dozen other products out of 48 tested had similar or higher levels.
Johnson’s baby shampoo also had a low level of 1,4-dioxane, a chemical banned by the European Union that was also found in three Aveeno baby wash products made by J&J, Johnson’s moisture care and oatmeal baby washes, and about 25 baby and personal care products made by other companies.
Though the amounts in question are so small that many deem them safe, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, acting director of consumer group Public Citizen, said, “Generally with carcinogens, there isn’t any safe level.”
The campaign notes that the two chemicals are not listed on product labels because they are contaminants, not ingredients. [ ] If the two chemicals were food additives, he noted, they would have to be tested before being sold to prove they didn’t contain dangerous chemicals. “These products would flunk such a test,” Wolfe said.
To read more: click here