iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo Has Cancer-Causing Chemicals, Group Says

By LINDA A. JOHNSON   11/ 1/11 04:09 PM ET   AP

Johnson And Johnson Shampoo

TRENTON, N.J. -- Two chemicals considered harmful to babies remain in Johnson & Johnson's baby shampoo sold in the U.S., even though the company already makes versions without them, according to a coalition of health and environmental groups.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has unsuccessfully been urging the world's largest health care company for 2 1/2 years to remove the trace amounts of potentially cancer-causing chemicals – dioxane and a substance called quaternium-15 that releases formaldehyde – from Johnson's Baby Shampoo, one of its signature products.

Johnson & Johnson said it is reducing or gradually phasing out the chemicals, but did not respond directly to the campaign's demands.

Now the group is ratcheting up the pressure and urging consumers to boycott Johnson & Johnson baby products until the company agrees to remove the chemicals from its baby products sold around the world.

"Johnson & Johnson clearly can make safer baby shampoo in all the markets around the world, but it's not doing it," said Lisa Archer, director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. "It's clearly a double standard, something they can easily fix."

Archer said her group has met with Johnson & Johnson representatives three times since spring 2009, and is disappointed the company is not making safer baby shampoo and other products in the U.S. when it does elsewhere.

On Monday, the campaign sent Johnson & Johnson a letter, signed by about 25 environmental, medical and other groups representing about 3.5 million people in the U.S. and other countries. It urges the company to publicly commit by Nov. 15 to removing the chemicals from all personal care products worldwide.

In response, Johnson & Johnson said in a statement that formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are safe and approved by regulators in the U.S. and other countries, but that it is gradually phasing them out of its baby products. It said it is also reformulating baby products to reduce the level of dioxane below detectable levels. But it did not say whether it would respond to or meet the campaign's full demands.

The letter, addressed to CEO William Weldon, was signed by groups including the Breast Cancer Fund, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, American Nurses Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility and Green America.

"Even though the chemicals may be low-level, why risk it?" said Tracey J. Woodruff, an associate professor and director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at University of California-San Francisco.

Woodruff, who is not involved in the campaign, noted that the chemical levels in the baby products add to other chemicals infants are exposed to every day.

According to the report, obtained by The Associated Press, one of the suspect chemicals, quaternium-15, is a preservative that kills bacteria by releasing formaldehyde. Formaldehyde, used as a disinfectant and embalming fluid, was declared a known human carcinogen this past June by the U.S. National Toxicology Program. Formaldehyde also is a skin, eye and respiratory irritant.

Quaternium-15 is still an ingredient on Johnson & Johnson's Baby Shampoo sold in the U.S., Canada, China, Indonesia and Australia, but the campaign's research this summer found it's not in the same product sold in at least eight other countries, from the U.K. and Denmark to Japan and South Africa.

The second chemical, 1,4-dioxane, is considered a likely carcinogen. It's a byproduct of a process for making chemicals more soluble and gentler on the skin.

The campaign's May 2009 report, called "No More Toxic Tub," stated that studies by an independent laboratory it hired, Analytical Sciences LLC of Petaluma, Calif., found that 1,4-dioxane was contained in Johnson & Johnson's Baby Shampoo, Oatmeal Baby Wash, Moisture Care Baby Wash and Aveeno Baby Soothing Relief Creamy Wash.

According to the report, the company has since launched a baby shampoo called Johnson's Naturals, sold in the U.S., that does not include 1,4-dioxane. But original Johnson's baby shampoo, which costs about half as much, has not been reformulated for the U.S. market, according to the campaign.

Analytical Sciences tested multiple J&J baby product samples from the U.S. for the first report, finding low levels of the chemicals. After that, according to Archer, consumer groups in South Africa, Sweden and Japan contacted her group to note that quaternium-15 was not being used in products in their countries. The updated report was based on an examination of label ingredients for Johnson & Johnson baby products in 13 countries.

Archer noted that some of the countries where the products did not contain the harsh chemicals had bans on them in personal care products, but others didn't.

Woodruff, who researches health effects of chemicals, said there is evidence that formaldehyde is associated with nose, lung and blood cancers such as leukemia. She said an infant's scalp is more permeable than an adult's, so exposure to the chemicals could cause more harm for babies than adults.

"You're exposing a child during a very vulnerable period of development, when the effect may be worse," Woodruff said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST PARENTS

TRENTON, N.J. -- Two chemicals considered harmful to babies remain in Johnson & Johnson's baby shampoo sold in the U.S., even though the company already makes versions without them, according to a coa...
TRENTON, N.J. -- Two chemicals considered harmful to babies remain in Johnson & Johnson's baby shampoo sold in the U.S., even though the company already makes versions without them, according to a coa...
Filed by Jessica Samakow  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 668
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (18 total)
05:21 PM on 12/30/2011
I used to use this brand but not anymore since I found HairyKids shampoo and conditioner, I even use it myself!. If you can find the natural ones why use chemicals? It is a matter of choices.
03:34 PM on 12/15/2011
I understand the point of this article, but why only target J&J? I use the store brand version of that product and it too contains the same ingredients. It is not just one company doing this, but only one is getting a bad rap for it.
08:25 AM on 12/08/2011
Can you use it now? Because i was does worried.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:18 PM on 11/28/2011
Besides which they continue to test their dumb@55 products on animals! Boycott all companies that continue that barbaric behavior
09:45 PM on 11/24/2011
I"m a Kaiser patient in California with Bronchiatisis--the cilia don't do their job of getting rid of mucus. My Doc has prescribed an off-label use: Johnson and Johnson's baby shampoo--l or 2 drops in the nasal rinse (along with salt and baking soda. I am older than 70 and this exposure, tiny as it is, taken into the nasal passages over time is scary. Any alternatives to this?????
12:16 AM on 11/18/2011
Im not suprised.. Their lotions have mineral oil in them and
"Mineral oil is the main ingredient in may baby care items as well. Baby oil, Vaseline (petroleum jelly), baby wash liquid soap, and baby lotions all contain mineral oil as a key ingredient. As mentioned above, manufacturers can buy it very inexpensively and it will not spoil.The problem is that mineral oil is foreign to the human body and has many harmful effects, especially in infants. Some of the effects of mineral oil may be a little surprising.

Mineral oil acts as a thin layer on the skin. It is difficult to absorb and clogs the pores, which slows the skin’s ability to eliminate toxins. Remember, the skin is the body’s largest organ and plays an important role in maintaining overall health! Once the oil is absorbed, it is broken down by the liver and passes through the intestinal tract, it will absorb all of the fat-soluble vitamins found there. It is essentially stealing important vitamins from the body, which the body will not be able to replace. This can eventually lead to nutritional deficiencies. Studies have also shown forms of pneumonia caused by mineral oil decreasing lung function, known as lipoid pneumonia. Because of these dangers, the medical community has condemned the use of mineral oil taken orally or as an ingredient in medications." http://www.herballuxuries.com/about-mineral-oil.html

I use naturals...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
yaz0001
12:30 PM on 11/16/2011
I am surprised to read such an article, especially about a J&J baby product. At the same time, I feel like a fool to be surprised--since when does such a large corporation care about the welfare of its customers? I just hope families out there get to read this. The best tool we have in our arsenal as consumers is knowledge--being aware of what is around us and making our decisions accordingly. The reason why corporations can actually get away with such --- is because they are under the assumption that we as consumers are oblivious (and okay with being so) to their misdeeds. We should all be cognizant of what products we buy and use and most importantly those for kids.
11:04 PM on 11/09/2011
Large corporations are slow to change anything. I know because I used to work for one. I think these companies would rather pay the the product liability claims than work with all due diligence to make their products safe. We need more consumer watchdog organizations and better regulations to overcome the natural inertia built in corporate America.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Areya
Chant & Be Happy
01:13 PM on 11/07/2011
Chemical use in body care products is a big bee in my bonnet. Children are exposed to so many harmful products yet we are continuously told that, in small doses, these exposures are harmless. This is the great lie! Our livers and kidneys are taxed by the chemicals used in manufacturing body care products. The planet is saturated (flushed birth control pills and unused drugs have contaminated water tables), women's bodies are holding parabens and other chemicals in our fatty tissues. Cancers, osteoporosis and other degenerative diseases plague us and then big pharma and the western health care system want to pump us with more chemicals.

Unless you're filthy, the body needs very little, but some, cleansing agent, plenty of water and occasional buffing. Most shampoos strip scalp and hair of oils and then product companies sell you more "toxic" stuff to make your hair smooth and shiny.Use products without "cones" (e.g. dimethacone), parabens and dyes. Learn to use essential oils and body oils (avocado, sesame, etc.). Do it for you, your family and the Earth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
calimom123
well behaved women rarely make history
02:42 PM on 11/06/2011
"Johnson & Johnson. A family company"

Yeah, right. A family putting babies at risk of cancer. Thanks, but no thanks.
09:23 AM on 11/06/2011
It makes me sick to know I have been exposing my granddaughter to these harmful chemicals. I guess you can't trust anything.
09:51 AM on 11/05/2011
To the people saying its a low level; usually, you give your child a bath everyday, sometimes more or less. So that low exposure for a quick "30 seconds" is everyday exposure. That can't be good. No thank you to putting formaldehyde on an infant's skin. I've known about this for a long time, how is this just making news now? I highly recommend checking ingredients in EVERYTHING. Watch what you put on or in your body, or what you use or keep around in the enviroment around you. Your own health and the health of your child's is your own responsibility.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles Queen
I am a disabled nam vet
11:51 PM on 11/04/2011
There ya go.Government regulators say it's ok the way it is but their going to quit using the bad stuff in their product.I'd say the amounts are so small that it moree than likely is not any kind of a problem or anything to worry about.Government rugulators are one of the biggest problems in our country today and are one of the main reasons nobody can do anything or get anything done
photo
runswithscissors
Hobson's Choice ≠ Free Will
07:19 PM on 12/04/2011
The regulations here are too lax. Notice that the toxic sludge shampoo wasn't sold in countries where they were forbidden from using those chemicals? That isn't because J&J likes them better, it was because their regulations are better than ours. The gutting of our already weak regulatory system is the problem.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles Queen
I am a disabled nam vet
07:31 PM on 12/04/2011
Yes,I seen it o the news some time back about th johnsons and johsons baby shampooo containing toxic chems seems these sam chems have been being used in many other products on the market.I know they said they would stop using it.I also feel we have way to many regulayory depts in this country although this is not one of hem but soembody dropped the ball by allowing them to use the bad chems in their products for so many years.I also say there's probobly a lot of coruption in these things as well
10:25 AM on 11/04/2011
another example proving that FDA approvals are for sale