October 22, 2009 5:01 pm at 5:01 pm #590651
I heard that JOhnsons shampoos have dangerous chemicals. Has anybody heard of it?October 22, 2009 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm #663439
There’s always going to be those crazy rumors going around. My mom used Johnson’s shampoo on me thirty years ago, and I’m still around and kicking. And I have most of my brain too.
Don’t believe everything you read…
ETA: Cool! I never got to use the edit button here. 🙂October 22, 2009 5:08 pm at 5:08 pm #663440
I didnt read it, it came out on the news, but not any johnson product, some yes and some no, the purple and pink bottles are the ones that they say are dangerousOctober 22, 2009 5:09 pm at 5:09 pm #663441
08 February 2007
1,4-Dioxane is a petroleum-derived contaminant considered a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a clear-cut animal carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program. It is also on California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known or suspected by the state to cause cancer or birth defects. Because it is a contaminant produced during manufacturing, the FDA does not require it to be listed as an ingredient on product labels.
The problem of 1,4-Dioxane contamination in personal care products is highlighted in a new book, “Safe Trip to Eden: Ten Steps to Save the Planet Earth from the Global Warming Meltdown,” by David Steinman. The laboratory results were released jointly today at the National Press Club by Steinman and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of U.S.-based health and environmental groups working to protect cosmetics consumers from toxic chemicals and hold companies accountable for the safety of their products.
“Regrettably, 1,4-Dioxane contamination is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund, a founding member of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “Because the FDA does not require cosmetics products to be approved as safe before they are sold, companies can put unlimited amounts of toxic chemicals in cosmetics.”
Steinman said parents should be outraged that companies are willing to spend a significant amount of money on entertainment licensing agreements that entice children but won’t spend pennies to remove contaminants such as 1,4-Dioxane.
“Consumers who have young children, as I do, have the right to expect the highest purity in children’s products,” Steinman said. “I call on American consumers to say no to dangerous petrochemicals in their children’s cosmetic and personal care products.”
Contrary to what many consumers may believe, the FDA does not review or regulate cosmetics products or ingredients for safety before they are sold to the public and has no legal authority to require safety assessments of cosmetics.
Devra Lee Davis, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, said that the usual regulatory approach of assessing risk one chemical at a time does not account for the combined effects of very low levels of hidden contaminants in personal care products and from other sources. “We must lower exposures to controllable agents that we know or suspect cause cancer,” she said.
The FDA has been measuring 1,4-Dioxane levels since 1979, but because the agency has little authority or enforcement capacity over the cosmetics industry, it has worked with manufacturers to reduce levels on a voluntary basis only. In 2000, the FDA recommended that cosmetic products should not contain 1,4-Dioxane at concentrations greater than 10 ppm (parts per million); yet some 15 percent of products tested exceeded even these lenient guidelines. This limit, however, also does not take into account that babies exposed to 1,4-Dioxane from baby shampoo may be exposed at the same time to 1,4-Dioxane from bubble bath, body wash and many other products.
More than two dozen products were tested at Steinman’s request by West Coast Analytical Service, an independent testing laboratory specializing in trace chemical analysis. Among the products tested:
Product and 1,4-Dioxane concentration:
Baby & Children’s Consumer Products
Disney Clean as Can Bee Hair & Body Wash (Water Jel Technologies): 8.8 ppm
Disney Pixar Cars Piston Cup Bubble Bath (MZB Personal Care): 2.2 ppm
Gerber Grins & Giggles Gentle & Mild Aloe Vera Baby Shampoo: 8.4 ppm
Hello Kitty Bubble Bath (Kid Care): 12 ppm*
Huggies Baby Wash Shea Butter: 4.0 ppm
Huggies Natural Care Baby Wash Extra Gentle and Tear Free: 4.2 ppm
Johnson’s Head-to-Toe Baby Wash (Johnson & Johnson): 5.3 ppm to 6.1 ppm
Johnson’s Kids Tigger Bath Bubbles (Johnson & Johnson): 5.6 ppm to 7.9 ppm
Johnson’s Kids Shampoo Watermelon Explosion (Johnson & Johnson): 10 ppm*
Lil’ Bratz Mild Bubble Bath (Kid Care): 3.7 ppm
L’Oreal Kids Orange Mango Smoothie Shampoo: 2.0 ppm
Mr. Bubble Bubble Bath Gentle Formula with Aloe: 1.5 ppm
Rite-Aid Tearless Baby Shampoo: 4.3 ppm
Scooby-Doo Mild Bubble Bath (Kid Care): 3.0 ppm
Sesame Street Wet Wild Watermelon Bubble Bath (The Village Company): 7.4 ppm
Adult Consumer Products
Clairol Herbal Essences Rainforest Flowers Shampoo: 23 ppm*
Olay Complete Body Wash with Vitamins (normal skin): 23 ppm*
Suave Naturals Passion Flower: 2.0 ppm
Steinman’s book explains what Americans can do today to be “green patriots” and curb the nation’s dependency on foreign oil. The new laboratory results reveal the health risks posed by the same petrochemicals that are part of what he calls the nation’s growing oil addiction.
Women and girls use an average of 12 personal care products daily, according to a 2004 survey conducted by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.October 22, 2009 5:10 pm at 5:10 pm #663442
Everything and Nothing causes cancer…October 22, 2009 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #663443
thankyou mod80October 22, 2009 5:17 pm at 5:17 pm #663444
Thanks for the article, Mod80.
Charred meats have carcinogens in them.
As do meats with nitrates.
And cakes and cookies with saturated fats may have potential carcinogens.
Pesticides that are sprayed on produce may have carcinogens.
We live in the best of times, and the worst of times.
We probably should all go organic and live a green life. The only problem would be, the way we pollute our lungs just by walking outside.October 22, 2009 5:29 pm at 5:29 pm #663445
If the editors will allow this link…
I have no idea how to do this properly. If the editor doesnt want to allow thislink, perhaps they can somehow post the article as a response? The bottom of the link also contains links to other articles which the editor may, or may not want to allow.October 22, 2009 5:56 pm at 5:56 pm #663446
that could be but now we are talking about if you can avoid a shampoo, well why not?October 22, 2009 6:01 pm at 6:01 pm #663447
Johnson’s baby products are certified parve by the O-R and the O-C, with the exception of baby milk which is OC-D.
However, only those products made under licence in Malaysia are certified “noki mekol chashas tumas haTzioinis”.October 22, 2009 6:41 pm at 6:41 pm #663448
I didnt understand that last postOctober 22, 2009 9:03 pm at 9:03 pm #663449
If you did not understand that one, then it is a sign you have not been here long enough to lose your sanity!October 22, 2009 10:35 pm at 10:35 pm #663450
what about baby wipes and bar soaps?October 22, 2009 11:08 pm at 11:08 pm #663451
there is no problems and with creams eitherOctober 22, 2009 11:51 pm at 11:51 pm #663452
anon for thisParticipant
At least my stock of J&J buddies soaps are still OK.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.