Under pressure from consumer groups, Johnson & Johnson has finally begun to purge a potentially harmful chemical from its “No More Tears” baby products.

You’d never knowingly scrub your child’s head with formaldehyde, yet for years a lack of label transparency at Johnson & Johnson has allowed parents to do just that. See, for a long time the brand’s “No More Tears” baby shampoo products contained quaternium-15, a chemical preservative that releases formaldehyde as it ages. Yes, the amount of potential formaldehyde is very small and, yes, Johnson & Johnson claims its safe for human use. But still, if you can make a product as important as baby shampoo without it, why wouldn’t you?

That’s the question asked by thousands of parents who petitioned the company to change its formula. And now, Johnson & Johnson has finally agreed. According to the Environmental Working Group, which led the grassroots effort, the company has altered the formula of about 100 of its baby products to remove the quaternium-15, and reduced levels of 1,4 dioxane, which the federal government suspects to be carcinogenic.

To its credit, Johnson & Johnson also pledged to reformulate more of its wares by next year, including removing or limiting several other toxic chemicals in baby and adult products. Significantly, however, it is stopping short of removing all formaldehyde releasers from adult products. Instead, it said it would “avoid use of formaldehyde releasers in adult products whenever possible.”

Last year, Johnson & Johnson told the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics that it had already removed phthalates, potentially hazardous chemicals already banned in toys and products for babies. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for many other personal care product and toy manufacturers.

Want to learn more about the brand’s efforts to reduce toxic chemicals? There’s a website for that. “Known as Our Safety & Care Commitment, we created a website, www.safetyandcarecommitment.com, dedicated to helping consumers better understand how we ensure the safety of beauty and baby care products and the ingredients that go into them. Consumers can view our ingredient policies and learn about the rigorous scientific standards of our five-level safety assurance process,” states a Johnson & Johnson press release.

NPR.org also has a great chart that breaks down the company’s new policies on baby and beauty products.

Related on Ecosalon

Behind The Label: Johnson’s Baby Shampoo

How To Raise A Zero Carbon Footprint Baby

Documentary Exposese 80K Chemicals in Everyday Products

Image: criminalintent

The post Johnson & Johnson Says ‘No More Formaldehyde’ In Baby Shampoo appeared first on EcoSalon.

No more tears… but at what cost?

For many Americans, the lightly floral scent of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo brings to mind the cherubic purity of a newborn baby.

That’s why it was shocking to find that Johnson & Johnson’s popular line of baby care products contains trace amounts of known and probable carcinogens – chemicals that have been linked with cancer.

The information was brought to light by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which has been calling on Johnson & Johnson to remove these chemicals from their baby products since 2009. In 2011, the Campaign organized a media blitz and boycott, which ended a few weeks later with a promise by Johnson & Johnson to phase out suspect chemicals by 2013. Then, last fall, Johnson & Johnson announced that it would be phasing out suspected carcinogens from all of its cosmetics products – a major commitment from a corporation that huge.

While the announcement is certainly a victory, it has come with its drawbacks. In being open and transparent about its efforts, Johnson & Johnson has also brought attention to the fact that its products contained potentially toxic ingredients in the first place – a fact that many consumers were previously unaware of. This week’s Behind the Label takes a look at the Johnson & Johnson’s controversy, but also at the risks involved in taking corporate social responsibility public.

The Good

With 250 subsidiaries and operations in 175 countries, Johnson & Johnson is one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. Its products are a roll call of household names: Band-Aids, Tylenol, Neutrogena, and, of course, Johnson’s baby products.

That’s why the news that Johnson & Johnson is removing suspected toxins from all of its cosmetics products is significant. It’s the first major commitment by a multinational pharmaceuticals corporation to remove commonly used but potentially toxic chemicals from products on a large scale.

The new policy will extend to Johnson products that are classified as “cosmetics,” with the addition of sunscreen and acne medication, and will encompass popular brands like Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Johnson’s, Lubriderm, Neutrogena, and RoC.

According to the New York Times, Johnson’s also intends to phase out other toxins and irritants, including phthalates, triclosan, and synthetic fragrances. All parabens will be removed from baby products, and some parabens will be removed from adult products.

Publicizing this new initiative was bold, but also risky. As the New York Times noted:

Johnson & Johnson’s decision requires the company to navigate a public relations tightrope, by portraying itself as willing to make extensive changes while simultaneously reassuring consumers that its existing products are safe.

Seventh Generation, which has a competing line of natural baby products, applauded Johnson & Johnson’s efforts, but noted that more needs to be done. “Johnson & Johnson’s announcement represents a start, but it’s clear that the need for sweeping systemic change that would remove all hazards from all products remains,” read a company press release. “We urge Johnson & Johnson, and all personal care and cosmetic companies, to follow the Precautionary Principle and do just that.”

The Bad

While Johnson & Johnson’s announcement was a significant step forward, it also highlighted the fact that the company’s baby products contained potentially harmful chemicals in the first place. While Johnson’s insists that all of its products undergo a five-level safety assurance process, and that these chemicals are not harmful in small doses, the news still raised a major red flag among parents.

Specifically, Johnson’s Baby Shampoo was found to contain two chemicals suspected of contributing to cancer. One is quaternium-15, a preservative that acts as a formaldehyde-releaser. Formaldehyde, also found in disinfectants and cigarette smoke, was declared a known human carcinogen by the U.S. National Toxicology Program in June 2011, though it has been listed as an “anticipated human carcinogen” since 1981.

According to the Associated Press, quaternium-15 is not present in Johnson’s baby products sold in at least eight other countries, including the U.K., Denmark, Japan, and South Africa, but it remains in Johnson’s baby products sold in the U.S., Canada, China, Indonesia, and Australia.

The second suspect ingredient is 1,4-dioxane, a probable human carcinogen that is generated during the ethoxylation process, which, ironically, is used to make other chemicals less harsh on the skin. According to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, it is highly unlikely that one product containing 1,4-dioxane will cause harm on its own. However,

… repeated exposures from many different products add up. The same baby could be exposed to 1,4-dioxane from baby shampoo, bath bubbles and body wash in a single bath, as well as from other contaminated personal care products today, tomorrow and the next day. Repeated exposures to a single carcinogen, synergistic effects from exposures to multiple carcinogenic and mutagenic ingredients, and concerns about exposures at key points in development (such as pregnancy, infancy and puberty) are cause for concern even though little risk is evident from a single small exposure.

According to the Campaign, the presence of 1,4-dioxane is preventable by using “vacuum-stripping” to remove the chemical from an ethoxylated product, or by simply using less-harsh ingredients, like organic ones, to begin with.

The Questionable

This controversy was clearly preventable. Johnson & Johnson has long been formulating carcinogen-free baby products for European and foreign markets. So why did it take years of political pressure from advocacy groups for Johnson to make the same commitment in the U.S.?

Susan Nettesheim, who heads up Johnson’s evaluation of product chemicals and safety, told the Associated Press that the decision to produce different formulas in different countries is “based on the availability of raw materials, development of formulas that were done in many cases years ago and consumer preferences” for the look and feel of products. Though Johnson & Johnson says that it is “working with global suppliers” to reduce chemicals like 1,4-dioxane to less than four parts per million, it won’t completely phase out the chemicals in U.S. baby products until 2013.

Seventh Generation points out that Johnson’s Natural product line and healthier overseas formulations are proof that Johnson’s is capable of taking much stronger and more comprehensive steps quickly and easily. “Eliminating a handful of the harmful ingredients from a formula while allowing others to remain and taking years to fully implement this is a half-measure and ultimately accomplishes little. It compels the question: is this about protecting public relations or public health?”

The news has also created suspicion among consumers, particularly moms who were shocked to learn that the baby products they had assumed were safe might not be.

“In my household, we never use J&J baby products because they contain a number of potentially harmful chemicals,” mommy blogger Jennifer Taggart told the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “If they can produce for Europe a product that doesn’t contain carcinogens, why can’t they produce it for (American) babies?”

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: Burt’s Bees

Behind the Label: Lush Fresh Handmade Cosmetics

Behind the Label: The Body Shop’s ‘Against Animal Testing’ Campaign

Behind the Label: Avon’s Crusade Against Breast Cancer

Read more Behind the Label here.

Images: Greg Tee

The post Behind the Label: Johnson’s Baby Shampoo appeared first on EcoSalon.

My life is ripe with babies. I have babies in Los Angeles, babies in Chicago, and babies in New York City. Not to mention, toddlers and pre-teens galore. No, I’m not Octo-Mom on speed, delivering progeny across an ungrateful nation – I’m in my late thirties and all my friends have babies. This means much embracing of the cuteness and chubby cheeks. This also means a lot of “what are the best natural products for my adorable baby?” Generally followed by “can you babysit Saturday night?”

Well, moms and sensitive-skinned adults, I found a great product. California Baby’s Calendula Shampoo and Bodywash is about as pure and sudsy as they get. It is great for the little ones, but also a fantastic product for those of use with sensitive skin. This product gets a rating of ONE from Skin Deep – this must be in capital letters because it is the first natural product I have reviewed to receive the highest of ratings from the Environmental Working Group cosmetic database.

Why is it so pure? It contains organic and sustainably grown ingredients – calendula has been known to soothe skin for centuries. It is free of fragrance, scent masking agents, sodium lauryl sulfate, and DEA. It is biodegradable and free of common allergens. And it is naturally tear-free without the use of numbing agents.

But enough of the PR ingredients list – how does it work? Very well, I’m happy to report! I considered offering the product to my friends to use on their babies. After I finished attacking Tokyo – (because that would be monstrous! Who tests on babies?) – I decided to shower up and let the suds roll into my own eyes. And yes, the product does not sting. It’s not pleasant to have soap in your eyes – I rubbed at them exactly like I was an infant – but stings there were none. It has a light, pleasant smell that comes off really minty in application.

All in all, this is a great shampoo/bodywash for babies and sensitive big kids like us. Just heed this one warning – this product is highly concentrated, so a little goes a long way. I did not read the instructions to use only a dime-sized amount and basically almost drowned in a monster explosion of suds. It was totally akin to Bobby Brady using the washing machine

For further reading:

7 Squeaky Clean Non-Toxic Bath Products for Babies and Kids

FTC Compliance

Image: chimothy27

The post No Tears? No Problem! Super Sensitive Shampoo and Body Wash appeared first on EcoSalon.

Tired of that thong song when your sexiest undies collapse from too many wash machine beatings?

One way to lessen the damage is my mom’s method of washing her lingerie in a mesh bag on the delicate cycle of the wash machine, keeping the fabrics separated from towels and other heavier cottons. Bags also help protect fragile fabrics from too much machine agitation. Sadly, Mom still uses Tide detergent on everything. I wheeze from the chemical odor and wince at the notion of wearing tender garments marinated in Tide!

Mesh bags with green detergents are a good way to clean sturdier cotton undies and camisoles  in the machine, and for those who like using bags, Good Housekeeping has some great tips.

But when it comes to silks, I prefer to hand wash and hang undergarments, hose, bathing suits and work-out gear, finding it goes further to sustain these daily necessities while also rushing them through the wash and wear cycle faster.

Here are some safe and gentle products for soaking our most fragile garments:

1. Baby Shampoo

Even before having babies, I began soaking my delicates in the sink with a thimble-full of baby shampoo. My late Aunt Lorraine, one of the best knitters in the Midwest, taught me this trick for handwashing knitwear. For my hose, good thongs and bras, I use organic products, like California Baby , $20, finding a very small amount goes a long way in making suds. I add about a tablespoon to a sink full of water (lukewarm for anything that doesn’t need stain removal and warmer for garments that are spotted). I rinse in clean water and drape the wet garments over a towel to air dry. Experts say not to hang hose or they stretch out, so I usually fold mine over the bathtub rim on a dry towel.

Another reason I love gentle baby shampoo is that I’m highly allergic to most scented shampoos and lingerie washes, and I have no reaction to this gentle alternative. When out of the shampoo, I have also used gentle baby soaps, simply lathering the bar a bit with my hands under the tap to make suds for soaking.

2. Forever New Fabric Care Wash

A product that has been on the market for 25 years, Forever New , $15 – $17, has several organic formulas that address various garments from lights and darks to swimwear, work-out wear and items in need of stain removal. It works great for hand-washing bras. I have a friend who is quite well endowed and she washes a dozen bras at a time and then strings them to dry inside her shower. The site is something to behold. It’s important to remember to reshape the cups when hanging to dry. The washing is easy: you just fill the sink with lukewarm water, add the liquid and swish with your hand to mix the soap. Rinse twice and dry. Your bras will have a longer life if you avoid the tumbling of the machine.

3. Hanky Panky

The maker of organic thongs and undies, Hanky Panky has introduced a biodegradable lingerie wash powder that is hypoallergenic, fragrance free and made in the USA. It’s sold at site like A Brief Affair for $8.50 for an 8 oz. jar. Be sure to follow the directions for mixing so you don’t make the wash too potent.

Main image: Daniele Butera

The post Eco Alternatives for Handwashing Delicates appeared first on EcoSalon.