Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    The Week

    Are baby shampoos poisoning infants?

    Consumer groups boycott Johnson & Johnson after finding trace levels of potentially dangerous chemicals in the iconic Johnson's Baby Shampoo

    A coalition of consumer advocates and health watchdogs is urging Americans to boycott Johnson & Johnson. The company's alleged crime: Continuing to sell Johnson's Baby Shampoo containing cancer-causing chemicals, even though the product has been pulled from the shelves in other countries. What parents need to know:

    What are these toxic chemicals?
    The first, dioxane, is "a likely carcinogen" that is "a byproduct of a process for making chemicals more soluble and gentler on the skin," reports the Associated Press. The second is a preservative called quaternium-15, which releases formaldehyde to kill bacteria. Formaldehyde "was declared a known human carcinogen" this year. The shampoo complies with government standards, but babies are more vulnerable to exposure than adults, says Tracey J. Woodruff, director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at University of California-San Francisco. "Even though the chemicals may be low-level, why risk it?"

    So consumer groups are pushing a boycott?
    In a new report called "Baby's Tub is Still Toxic," the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics says that bottles of Johnson's Baby Shampoo still contain trace amounts of the carcinogenic chemicals, even though the company offers versions without them in other countries and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has been urging Johnson & Johnson to remove these chemicals from its baby products for more than two years. "It's clearly a double standard," Lisa Archer, the group's director, tells the Associated Press, "something they can easily fix."

    What does the company say?
    Johnson & Johnson says it is changing the formulas of its baby products to reduce dioxane content below detectable levels. It also says that formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are safe and have been approved by regulators in the U.S. and elsewhere, but it's still phasing them out. "We know that some consumers are concerned about formaldehyde," the company said in a statement, "which is why we offer many products without formaldehyde-releasing preservatives." Johnson & Johnson already makes a new, more expensive alternative to its traditional baby shampoo called Johnson's Naturals that doesn't contain the chemicals.

    If it's phasing out the carcinogens, why boycott?
    The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics' wants to know exactly when the company will eliminate the chemicals completely. And Johnson & Johnson might be unusually sensitive to such pressure. Less than a month ago, the company ranked as the most trusted brand in America in a Forbes survey, so its executives might be worried this controversy "could give consumers pause," says Amy Westervelt at Forbes

    Sources: Associated PressForbesReuters

    View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

    Other stories from this topic:

    Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

     
    • Robert  •  6 mths ago
      Answer to headline: no
    • Sal  •  Iowa Falls, United States  •  6 mths ago
      and one more thing; manufacturers didn't start loading in these dangerous chemicals until after the fifties and sixties, back when companies had more moral ethics. you know, when food was food, and chemicals were only in tupperware.
    • Sal  •  Iowa Falls, United States  •  6 mths ago
      by the way, my first post was not accepted at all, due to the mention of johnson & johnson and procter & gamble.
    • Sal  •  Iowa Falls, United States  •  6 mths ago
      i used this product on my four children from birth through five to eight years of age. i trusted it because they had been in the baby care business forever. i refused to even feed my kids pre-made baby food, even organic due to packaging problems. and the whole time i was poisoning them with their shampoo and talcum powder, daily. thanks for the knowledge, government officials. will see how many generations it takes to flush our children's and our children's children's bodies of these chemicals. by the way people, suave has the least chemicals of most body products. it's the cheapest, too. p.s. it would be best to not load this shit on your body everyday. imagine how much crap women slather on daily....shampoo, conditioner, hair dye, hair spray, lotion, deodorant, douches, lipstick, foundation, mascara. you guys is crazy. a la natural, is the ticket, unless you stink, of course. then, by all means, feed your cancer to save us all.
    • Jim  •  6 mths ago
      I think it was the only baby shampoo in the late 50s and all thru the 60s., How come kids wern't dropping like flies ?? there might have been some dangerous stuff back , The fact that the people in washington ate lead paint and crawled around in DDT power, is proof of that. All this is a atempt to justify more grant money and nothing more.
    • brian  •  Charlotte, United States  •  6 mths ago
      What the article doesn't say is that Dioxane is measured in parts per million and typically the maximum allowable ppm level in a chemical that goes into making these products is less than 30. It's a by product of a chemical reaction that is necessary and it IS federally regulated. It amazes me sometimes to what lengths the media goes to, to start a firestorm when there isn't a spark there to start with. If you're going to report on something, relay ALL of the facts, not just the ones that will start the outrage.
    • steve  •  6 mths ago
      Well, honestly, if these chemicals ARE here, one being a KNOWN carcinogen, the other a probable, why does the FDA allow them on the shelves? I know HOW MANY "bad drug" lawsuits are out there, and recalls on food, all of them dangerous. HOW? Another effecient government job done. Think about what you eat and use, people, because for all the funding, they obviously are NOT.
      • brian 6 mths ago
        Because these components are in such small amounts (less than 30 parts per million) that it CAN'T affect anyone's health
    • janet  •  Oklahoma City, United States  •  6 mths ago
      What household chemical product doesn't irritate people. I get hit with past shampoo
      use frequently. It's shame pooh or something probably according to the number and
      taps runner witches that irritate me with that and other crap.
    • kattdady  •  6 mths ago
      yes and spit can cause cancer but only if swallowed in small amouts over a long period of time.