The red ones were yummy! I stay away from the blue ones right now.

Activists want recruiting to start at an early and remove the stigmata of being classified as dirty and smelly.

Brainwashing (without a Johnson & Johnson product) is best done at an early age. That is why it works so well on canines.

Uh huh, and while everyone's at it, take a look at the ingredients in adult shampoo. Whatever. How many years did a rat have to soak in the stuff? So phase it out. There's a heck of a lot more in this world on a daily basis that's far more harmful.

"Johnson and Johnson, No more chemical burns".

Johnson & Johnson bring us their sudsy shampoo's back from china and then sneak it on the shelves.

I had an eye condition in which my eye doctor suggested cleaning the entire eye area with Johnson and Johnson Baby Shampoo...no tears, you know. Thanks doc. This is not an uncommon condition and suggest you pass this info on to your parents and any siblings of "a certain age".

And just for general principles I am boycotting all Koch Georgia Pacific products. Google to get a list.

Our economy is in shambles, unemployment has been steady at 9%, people are protesting in the streets, and THIS is the lead story of the day on MSNBC.com?! Wow.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths we will go to (and expense) to rid our society of so-called "harmful products" while at the same time we rely so heavily as a society on the tax dollars we receive from other KNOWN harmful products. Imagine how many more deaths per year are attributed to alcohol and tobacco than from Johnson's baby shampoo! Yep, we need yet more regulation so we can put even more Americans out of jobs. Punish Johnson & Johnson, that evil American corporation!

You know, I might worry a bit about it if I hadn't already been using it myself for years as a face wash. I gave up on trying to find a 'sensitive' face wash that was actually sensitive enough for my skin, and started using my kids generic version of j&j's baby wash. Works much better and it's a heck of a lot cheaper.

Bruce, yes, you will always find problems bigger and better, and scarier even. However, this article is about harmful chemicals that are being used on BABIES, all so J&J can save some money. You have to remember that these products are being used on developing, growing babies. They are absorbing the same as an adult would, on a much smaller body.

How old are you Bruce? Have you lived a good portion of your life, so you just don't care about babies anymore, somehow don't think its important? Well, there is a huge population of people that DO care what is being put on our young children. No one is saying to put the behemoth that J&J is, out of business, they just want them to be more responsible and stop putting toxic chemicals in baby products.

Make no mistake about it Bruce, Johnson and Johnson may get on t.v. and tell you just how much they care about you, the world, the environment, but when it comes down to it, all they care about is their bottom line. If you drop dead tomorrow, they couldn't care less.

For those of you in here that DO care, try california baby products. You can find them at target. This is an American company, and they don't have any bad chemicals in them at all. Just check ewg's website under the cosmetic safety database and you'll see for yourself. It's a non-profit group that bases it's ratings on ingredients ONLY, it has nothing to do with the manufacturer. In fact, you can check everything you use in your household just to see how toxic the products that you are using every day are. I made some changes myself.

Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen. Why the hell does it need to be in baby shampoo except to cut costs and drive up the company's profits and give its executives even fatter bonuses? Johnson & Johnson used to be a trusted company with a good reputation. Between this and all the recalls of meds made in China, this company has thrown away its reputation as a family-owned American company for the sake of short-term greed.

Those of you who think this is a "non-story" are SERIOUSLY missing the point.

Guys... it causes cancer. Do you really want something proven to cause cancer... in baby products? When they don't need to? I mean, what the hell is the downside?

Lemon- Sounds great- except it's $10 for 8.5 oz...

The older I get, the more disgusted I get with what "industry" does to the "consumer" - whatever country, but especially in the US. (The melamine crimes of adding it to pet food, then baby formula - by Chinese corps - was the epitome of disgusting, at least those executives at the top were executed for the babies who died or were maimed.)

Less government is great, to a point. That point is public safety - whether food borne or greed borne - hammer these businesses. Parents I know would pay a premium to ensure the safety of their kids, and J & J - they are like an American Institution you could rely on - for shame J & J, get it together.

Well, inmissouri, I guess you have to decide what you or your children are worth. Speaking only for myself, my children are priceless to me so I prioritize and cut corners elsewhere. Oh, and if you buy the bigger pump of the shampoo (I use the super sensitive one), it's only 17.99 and it is super concentrated, it only takes a very small amount so it lasts forever and both my kids have mops of hair on their heads.

I have never used that other toxic garbage on my kids, or anyone else in my family for that matter. You're using toxic chemicals on your face, the same local as your brain, all to save a few bucks? Your skin, the biggest organ on your body, is absorbing that in, it doesn't all rinse off. The reason your toxic stuff is so cheap is because when a company like J&J can buy toxic ingredients in mass, they can pass the toxic savings onto you. I think you're worth the few extra bucks, don't you? Just try it... it's really nice stuff. Oh, and don't be alarmed that it doesn't get all sudsy like the stuff you're using... those are other toxic chemicals that make your products do that, without any benefit whatsoever, only harm.

Travis, I hope you've never swallowed an apple seed, or licked a peach pit, or any number of other fruit seeds that are known to be toxic and/or contain cancer-causing substances. Because by your logic, *any* contact with such substances are 100% guaranteed to be harmful. Yet, here in the real world, we know this to not be the case. Many things that are harmful in larger doses, have no effect on humans in the tiny doses we regulate.

And in the case of J&J, we are talking about a substance that was declared a carcinogen only 4 months ago. Since then, by their own admission, they've been reformulating to reduce and/or remove those substances from their product. Not to mention the fact that, even without reformulating, they were already well below the latest regulated limits.

Clearly, they are the Epitome of Evil for having trace amounts of a substance in their products, that could cause cancer if you to snort a pound of their shampoo every day for 10 years. And, they are obviously in league with Satan because they used said substance to kill off bacteria that may get into the shampoo bottle during normal use -- bacteria that could prove more harmful to your baby than the shampoo ever could.

Everyone has to make their own decisions. Personally, I trust something that has worked for me for many years, even if it contains minute quantities of something that may be harmful in large amounts. Many make the decision based on the fact that they want their child to be both clean and well fed, and can't afford both if they go for the expensive, organic/natural versions of everything. And I couldn't care less about suds- my homemade laundry detergent hardly has any.

Alarmist, one-sided and very sketchy research seems to pass for news these days. wouldn't it be nice to know what levels of these chemicals are dangerous and what kind of danger they present? Also, where's the data showing kids getting cancer from J&J baby shampoo? Where's the proof? Where are the studies?

This group is well-meaning but obviously have too much time on their hands. Also, this whole idea of 'it's an easy change' is a bit absurd too. See, J&J is a large, serious company with real responsibilities. I don't work there and I'm not an analytical chemist but I've run a company and understand you don't just switch suppliers in a heartbeat. If you change ingredients you're changing a long, complex and streamlined process that affects several people. in addition, as a healthcare business any change they make has to be tested to ensure the new formulation isn't dangerous. This takes time and money as well. Studies don't happen overnight because you want them to. If you already have a formulation that is proven safe, why change it? Why go through these troubles and expenses? Would these 'protestors' like to run a company? And if they're so smart, why don't they start their own shampoo company, save the world and compete with J&J?

As for these organic, 'safe' ingredient companies, do they tell you they only know the ingredients are safe because they were already tested on animals by another company? Is it fair to say, 'we didn't harm anyone making this' only because someone else had to harm something to make sure it was safe for everyone?

Again, I applaud their good intentions but by the same token I think their kind of thinking is bad for the country. We have enough whiners to fill the planet many times over.

I am really wondering what all the balking at this issue is really about (mainly earlier comments). What part of "even though the company already makes versions without them" or the fact that "about 25 environmental, medical and other groups representing about 3.5 million people in the U.S. and other countries," including Breast Cancer Fund, find this to be an important enough issue to be talking about, two and a half years after the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has been urging the company to remove these chemicals, doesn't merit action?

To Flash and others who insist these are only trace amounts (that is true): check out the cumulative effects of carcinogens, if you want to preserve your health. (Also, Flash, this is an AP article. It can be found on CBS, Fox, etc.)

Most importantly, these are baby products!

"There are a number of reasons why developing organs and especially children are at risk to chemical exposures. One is pound-for-pound, they drink more water, they breathe in more air, they eat more food … Another reason is that their organs are just developing, and subtle changes can have permanent consequences that can't be fixed after the fact. You can't press rewind and rerecord on a child's development, whether it's the brain, the lungs, the blood cells or any other system in the body. They also have more years in life in which to develop diseases as a result of subtle changes that result from chemical exposure."

--Dr. Leo Trasande, pediatrician and Assistant Professor of Community & Preventive Medicine and Pediatrics at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine

I have been "boycotting" these products for years—I don't buy products with known carcinogens for my children (or my whole family). The Environmental Working Group has a website of safer baby (and adult) skincare products.

The most disturbing line I found in the whole article was that Johnson & Johnson was 'gradually phasing out' the harmful chemicals. What this translates to is, "We have it on the shelves. We are not going to recall it and take a bath on it. So we will just continue to stock the shelves until it is all gone ... that and everything we have left in the warehouses and we will produce from the formula currently in use with the chemicals in question."

My question is this ... If they are manufacturing a safer version of the baby shampoo for some countries why not for all?

Thank you Kryss, you saved me from typing it all.... and for you Flash7? You keep ingesting your toxins, believing whatever the behemoth tells you. You'll do so at your own peril. Look, I'm not claiming I'm a scientist, but some common sense research on what is in your every day products and the serious potential for harm will open your eyes. And what's with this "be careful lemon, be careful" garbage.... EYEROLL... whatever.

inmissouri, I gave you the information I have done extensive reading on, and what you use is entirely up to you. Keep in mind that while these toxins may not be getting you right now, you may find when you're in your 60's or 70's and develop some form of cancer you have no family history of, perhaps you'll remember me and wished you had done without one of those "things" you felt at the time you weren't willing to forego to use a better, healthier product for yourself. I'm not advocating buying all organic in everything you use, I couldn't afford it either, but you pick and choose (especially the stuff your children ingest, omg). Like face creams you don't wash off immediately, please check the ingredients for safety. The ewg even lists fruits that you don't need to buy organic. This is a non-profit organization that like I said, rates things based on ingredients only, not paid off by massive organizations like J&J to sell their poison in the name of money. You'd be surprised by the every day cheaper products that are in line with your budget on their safe lists. Please check them out.

Hmmmm, they have a line of products that don't contain these chemicals... now why is that? Don't tell me it's to pacify the people who don't want to be poisoned, it's because they KNOW what they are doing is wrong, yet they're not willing to forego a multi-million dollar annual bonus to do what is right and remove their junk from the shelves. Some executives are so drunk on their wealth, they sleep just fine at night knowing what they are peddling is toxic, hiding behind the guise of the FDA who says it's ok. We all know how reputable and quick to respond the FDA is, huh. They don't have the pair needed to stand up to J&J and make them change until God only knows how many people are adversely affected. Sad.

inmissouri? Have you tried Dove sensitive skin soap? It's fragrance-free (inexpensive, stock up when on sale) and on the list of acceptable products.

Another tip is don't use products with fragrance... go fragrance free with everything you can... that cuts out a lot of unneeded chemicals. Anyone standing next to someone who has used something that has a cross between a kiwi and a green apple thinks you smell cheap. (I'm not saying you, btw) Good luck to you!

Follow the money -- Obviously by using this chemical, they're making more profit and they're postponing the inevitable (phasing it out) as long as possible. As far as the chemical itself is concerned, I used it on my kids and they've grown into healthy, active adults. Many of these claims are alarmist and exaggerated. Look at when they first came out with sugar substitutes. They would feed mice 100 times more in one dose than a human would consume in a lifetime and scream "cancer." I'm not saying they should put this stuff in baby shampoo. Since other countries have banned it, there must be something to the claim, but no sense getting hysterical over it.

Save the children, the battle cry of those with to much time on their hands. How many proven anythings has JnJ caused?

Oxygen is deadly, air is deadly, the sun causes cancer. Anything is bad at a certain point.

This is just selling news, not saving anything.

I actually use a generic version of dove's body wash... and we use a lot of unscented products in our house... when we want to smell something nice, we light a candle :)

Stephen,

Once again, the statement is, if they can make it without the harmful chemical (which is unnecessary and they're phasing it out anyways), what, exactly, is the downside of them leaving it out?

Your theory is along the lines of, damnit people, asbestos stops my stuff from catching on fire! and lead-based paint has way better coverage than oil or water-based paint.

Also - my mom has cancer, so this type of stuff is a bit personal. Especially in baby products - it's a no brainer.

Dr. Bronner's liquid soaps. Pure liquid castile soap. For babies there is a fragrance free and you dilute it 50/50 with water. Amusing how many chemicals go into things that once upon a time were mainly three ingredients. Grandma's lye soap? Lye being rather nasty and toxic and dangerous stuff (go watch the movie Fight Club w/ Brad Pitt for some great homemade soap episodes) but if made properly and allowed to cure, its what almost all bar soaps are made of, sodium tallowate on the label is the industry name for lye or sodium hydroxide.

Generally, the longer the list of ingredients containing polysyllabic words, the more chemicals there are in the product. Years ago I taught myself how to make soap because I seemed to be allergic to many mass produced products. Note, I used Johnson's baby shampoo and thought it was rather harsh. K. I. S. S. has always been a good rule of thumb to follow.

YES! We must keep the carcinogens out of baby washing products that've been around for decades so these precious little ones can grow up to be healthy when they start smoking!

Jeeze!

I think my mom dumped me in a tub full of chemicals after a day of playing in real playgrounds with no saftey-sponge mats, metal monkey bars with/out saftey edges and objects and a plethora of hazardous conditions ever! Those were the days!

This Leaderless Protest is getting more funny by minute.

Boycotting Baby Hair Shampoo---uh ha. Indeed a very important Political issue.

Guess What. They are still there; the bums. The object is to get free food, medical care, a floor to sleep on, and partying with the other clowns. The Government ought to work harder to get these people real jobs--will this last another year?

This is NOT a Dr. Martin Luther King March--it is a march for those who have no where to go, but further down the trash can.

Hopefully the Media doesn't ask or pay attention to the silliness of the gathering.

Baby Shampoo--next it will be condoms, for the Petroleum products used in the Latex, unnecessarily wasted by the US Government and Corporations!

This is one of the most entertaining threads in weeks!

Ken: Now that you mention it, I remember how my mother exposed me to many many hazards, just think, I rode in the back seat of the car and didn't have a seat belt much less a car seat. Of course, back then the cars resembled tanks and were actually made of metal rather than plastic.

We ate fried food. Butter. White flour products and non-organic produce. We bathed in whatever was on sale and ditto for the laundry and our water wasn't bottled and our dogs got table scraps, including all the things they say not to feed dogs and they lived to be old dogs.

Looking back, it's a wonder we made it this far...what did we do wrong?

....ACTIVIST"...LOL... what have they ever done except create "FEAR"...! Why don't they "DEMAND" a non-corrupt government...? Why don't they "DEMAND" global human equality? Why don't they "DEMAND" something, anything, that improves the quality of "LIFE"...?

Instead... it's about an ingredient on "SHAMPOO"......! wow...!

WHY?... because they are little people who have no voice, no say, and they only look for little nit picky things that will gain them just 15 minutes of fame before they look for something else to "COMPLAIN" about...! Non of which will ever make a difference, will ever come to fruition, and will not matter once someone turns the page of the newspaper, or clicks to the next story online... which I will do now because this is worthless and can't believe that I read it, and posted a comment... LOL... but I did... but then ...I didn't "DEMAND anything to get someone to read it...LOL...!

I wonder how many of these activists are pro life or even have children

This thread makes me weep for the future of humanity. It's absolutely astounding how many people -- on both sides -- seem to be just oh-so-sure that they know whether or not the ingredients in question are dangerous.

I hate to be the one to break the bad news, but there have been many claims like this. SOME CLAIMS LIKE THIS HAVE MERIT AND SOME DON'T.

I'd wager that most of the people posting in this thread have never heard the words "dose response curve" and the few that have probably could not begin to give a proper scientific discussion of the concept. If there are a few that understand dose-response curves, have you actually gone to PubMed and searched through the peer reviewed literature to find out if the concerns are supported by legitimate evidence?

It's really sad. I don't think you'd hear this many people talking out of their rear ends if you went to the National Bean Eaters Convention.

Next march should be for Bath Salts, the ones they get "High" on---

This is how gatherings of many different people from all walks of life, end up in Violence--fights---

Is that their goal? People get "Territorial". Maybe another Libya, Egypt, Yemen?

The Police Swat Teams should get ready.

Perhaps it seems like a minor thing, but 1 out of 110 babies are born with Autism now or develop it within the first couple of years of life. Evidence indicates a link to environmental toxins.

If it were your child it would make a difference to you. The flings at 'pro-life' are irrelevant. My son is Autistic. What difference does it make whether I'm anti or pro abortion, genius? I have a son and he isn't normal. I did nothing wrong except feed him food I bought from the supermarket. Politics don't enter into the equation, don't you get that? You may very well be working to support him on Social Security all his life. What do you think of that?

Cancer diagnoses are increasing exponentially. Ongoing research seems to connect that with pesticide and fertiliser residue in our food supplies. If you eat you should be concerned about that little problem.

I agree with Travis. It's not like JNJ doesn't have alternatives. If they can make it without these chemicals for other countries, why not for everyone?

I support anyones right to use whatever harmful stuff they want - on themselves. What do we think of mothers that drink, smoke, or use drugs while pregnant? What should we think of them if they use products that contain chemicals known to cause heath problems on their babies after they are born? I could care less if Flash7 get's face cancer. That's his choice. Babies don't get to choose. If you know it's bad, don't put it on your child. That's just a no-brainer.

Ok, why are the people who used J&J Baby Shampoo on their grown children, or whose parents used J&J Baby Shampoo on them 30 or 40 or 50 years ago with no ill effects ASSUMING that the formulation is the same now as it was then? That there wouldn't have been any changes to reduce the cost of production along the way? That new 'better' chemicals weren't developed that could make the product look, smell, and behave the same way at less cost to the the manufacturing process? That the two chemicals in question have always been in there? My parents used to work in a soap factory in the '40's and it made soap for a lot of different major brands. And it was truly soap (not detergent as most liquid soaps/shampoos are now). The ingredient list wasn't the polysyllabic challenge it is today. It was fat, lye, and fragrance.

Sheeeeesh....all I want to know is how to make laundry detergent.

rico-3714896-Sheeeeesh....all I want to know is how to make laundry detergent.

one of many recipies online, and the one I use: http://www.thefamilyhomestead.com/laundrysoap.htm

it costs about 1.00 to make 2 gallons, and is very easy... only downside is that it congeals a bit and you have to shake the jug before measuring :)

You know that fat, lye and fragrance have actual chemical names, right?

yup...but so do herbal and botanicals...reading labels these days takes awhile.

EVERYTHING has a chemical name. What's the point of reading them, if most people don't understand what they are, or what they do?

Hey "Junicon"... while you are babbling to yourself... let me educate you on life, and it's surroundings...

While I'm at it, why don't you go get yourself a glass of wine, or wait... you'll get breast cancer... no wait... it's okay go get one... no stop... you better not because it's not good for you to drink it unless you drink in excess... oh wait... now you can't and should consult a doctor first,... no wait... it was a false alarm... go get some wine... no wait.. don't....

Better go make yourself some eggs... they're better for you... no wait... the cholesterol will kill you... don't eat eggs...!!... no wait... that guy was wrong... go make some eggs it's alright ... no stop... you should only eat one... not any more... no wait... two is okay.... no wait... eat three I just watched a news thing that said three is too many... eat one... no wait another channel said you can eat two....

GET THE MESSAGE "JUNICON"... you can start babbling again now about how bankrupt the thoughts are running around in your head....

Thank You InMissouri!

And now a person on this thread is blaming the shampoo for autism? SERIOUSLY? There have been a lot of things that have changed in this world over the past 30-40 years, but to blame a recent diagnostic change and increase in autism on shampoo is ridiculous.

Cancer diagnoses are increasing exponentially.

Exponentially? No they're not. Are they increasing? Yes, but not exponentially. Let's think for a minute why cancer is increasing...perhaps because we're eliminating many other diseases that hurt or kill people, so unchecked cell growth (i.e. cancer) is an inevitable fact of life as you age. Eventually, you will either die of heart disease, cancer, or organ failure / old age when accidents and other diseases are eliminated. That doesn't mean that the things we use every day cause the increase per se.

Perhaps it seems like a minor thing, but 1 out of 110 babies are born with Autism now or develop it within the first couple of years of life. Evidence indicates a link to environmental toxins.

A few issues here. A) Evidence actually indicates a link to genetic abnormalities, not environmental toxins. B) So some people are "born with it", but not YOUR child, right? It's okay to label others autistic from the get-go, but YOUR child developed it from some exogenous source, right? Yeah right. Evidence has shown that there are genetic abnormalities in brain development genes (e.g. repetitive sequences, mutations, etc.) which alter the ability of the brain to develop "normally". Environmental toxins would not change the DNA composition of every cell in your body (i.e. if all body cells show this mutation, it obviously occurred early in fetal development, not after birth). Finally, it doesn't have to be inherited to be genetic (i.e. your parents' genes are not expressed in you -- it's the combination that is. Get a few mutations or a random bad combination of nucleotides in certain genes, and you have different traits, which in some people develop into cystic fibrosis, MS, ALS, etc.).

I'm not blaming you for your son's condition, but what I am saying is that to blame your son's condition exclusively on outside sources is not an accurate portrayal of current research.

Hold on to your seat.

My mom washed my head w/ dioxin and i became a grade "A" student w/ honors and then a millionaire ...the injustice!

Yea, all the millionaires burn time on newsvine arguing with strangers how successful they are (eyeroll)

So it's not super likely that this website is riddled with millionaires but I know of at least one bonafide millionaire that I told about my misadventures here and he logs in to comment every so often...just sayin'.

"and he logs in to comment every so often...just sayin'."

To make a point of claiming how much money he has? Seems doubtful....or suspicious at best (just sayin')

It isn't specifically to make reference to how much money he has but on a few posts (mostly political) he has made reference to his income.

Too funny Fishmail! (Just sayin'...LMAO)

Oh, and ten bucks says Brian is some J&J flunkie who was paid $8 an hour to troll the article they knew was publishing today to tell everyone what a swell, dioxin-laden millionaire he is!

"dioxin-laden millionaire he is!"

That got me LOL (literally) ;-)

hehehehehe!

I'm a multi-millionaire and I don't brag about it. I never mention it because I don't want people to like me just for my money.

Mind you, being an incognito millionaire isn't easy. You buy the large house in Malibu and your cover's blown, so I decided to buy a 67' VW bus and live out of it. You buy a 69 VW Bus and people know you can afford vintage so you go for an off year to keep it on 'the down low' as commoners would say.

Now I still have to conduct business so I do have a wireless connection on the van itself. It's pretty clever, actually. I paid this electronics genius to build a wireless router and shroud it in what looks to be an empty can of Campbell's tomato soup. He also built in a very sophisticated smart phone in the device. To the average onlooker it appears I'm talking into an empty can of Campbells soup when really I'm pulling complex stock deals and margin swaps that would make the common brain spin like a dolphin on crack.

But that's not all. I stopped shaving and bought a cologne that smells like ass from a guy in Russia. And just to top it off I bought Lincoln's top hat he wore the night he was assassinated. It's a bit old and torn now. I wear it in memory of my hero. No one would guess I paid a king's ransom for it, but I get to wear a bit of history and look more the part at the same time. I think on multiple levels like that, which is why I'm a multi-millionaire and most aren't.

So if you see a guy, in a VW van with a beat up top hat talking into a can of Campbells soup like a madman near the river, don't let looks deceive you! It is likely me, your average inconspicuous 'Joe-millionaire'.

My mom washed my head w/ dioxin and i became a grade "A" student w/ honors and then a millionaire ...the injustice!

Yeah, well I stopped bathing for safety's sake. Now I occupy a park across from J&J headquarters.

The Brits pay $1.59 (1 pound) for washing their baby's scalps with their J&J No More Tears that is free from these nastier compounds and makes the same product claims of being perfectly efficacious. Are our infants so second rate that they don't deserve the same benefit of not being exposed to unnecessary compounds? (sorry, that was rehtorical)

MovingOut -- Holy smoke, you mean that beat up old van in the park parking lot is you? The one that's moved every so often and has a huge (dirty) American flag draped across the back window? Who knew. Next time we'll walk the dog, we'll knock on the window and say hello. Matter of fact, feel free to join us for breakfast at the park restaurant. Our dog would immediately recognize a kindred spirit (same smell and all) and enjoy your company.

Yeah, like wow, who knew the guy talking into a soup can and living in a VW bus was a millionaire. The top hat was a nice touch although paying money to smell like 'ass' seems a tad much. I do know people who own donkeys, depending on what is meant by 'ass' I might could cut you a deal.

OMG Mygirl, too funny! And excellent suggestion on the Dr. Bronner's products! I have used the unscented on my kids, but have you tried the peppermint? It's all natural and it makes everything tingle, hahaha!

You're funny too Susi-Oh! Who knew there were so many fun people out there... glad you guys are here... thanks for the giggles and have a great one!

I realize tone is next to impossible to read on here so I will clarify that my post was not hostile or tongue in cheek. Nor was it meant to imply that there is verity in brian-whathisnumber's claims. Simply throwing out some anecdotal information to point out that you never know who you might be chatting with on the vine. Just sayin'.

Cheers.

I know several people worth a million or more and, strangely enough, you would never know it. This is NM and the grungy guy in coveralls standing next to you at Wally World might just be worth a million.

It's the ones who don't let on that are the most fun to hang with. When someone asks they how many cattle they have they just chuckle and say "not enough".

Mark,

I don't think there is anyone who believes that you can drink dioxin or DDT. The problem comes with the definition of "safe". You can die if you drink too much water - does that mean that water is not "safe"?

Regarding DDT, I agree that it is not safe for the environment or people, but there has been nothing to replace the pesticide that reduced the incident of malaria in Africa or South America. You could make the argument that banning DDT killed more people than it saved.

mark

water isn't safe if you don't know how to swim!

Mark said drink, not drown in water. And he's absolutely correct, the symptoms are actually similar to be dehydrated (believe it or not). Too much oxygen can be harmful too. This article is like me proclaiming that "Sunshine causes cancer!!"...without specifying the amount of exposure, and by what mechanism.

The point is this article says nothing about how much of these two substances and by what route are they harmful to an infant. Has there ever been a documented case of cancer being caused by J&J's No More Tears shampoo?

flnobody, your logic is that of someone with an IQ of less than 80.... If you're a lawyer you won't be working long.

Relax Dave, I'm 99.9% positive it was an attempt at humor.

My apologies, I confused you with some who would actually use that as an argument to prove a point and have no clue the major hole in it, even if it was explained to them.

MarineDoc,

I agree with you on one point—more should have been written to support the fact that cumulative effect is something to worry about, as is the vulnerability of babies’ and children’s bodies. I posted this quote earlier, but feel it would work well here:

“There are a number of reasons why developing organs and especially children are at risk to chemical exposures. One is pound-for-pound, they drink more water, they breathe in more air, they eat more food … Another reason is that their organs are just developing, and subtle changes can have permanent consequences that can’t be fixed after the fact. You can’t press rewind and rerecord on a child’s development, whether it’s the brain, the lungs, the blood cells or any other system in the body. They also have more years in life in which to develop diseases as a result of subtle changes that result from chemical exposure.”

--Dr. Leo Trasande, pediatrician and Assistant Professor of Community & Preventive Medicine and Pediatrics at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Kryss,

That's a fine quote. But that doesn't mean anything with a chemical name causes harm. And that's my point about this article. The vast majority of people becoming foamy at the mouth over this have no idea how either of these two compounds could possibly cause harm. They see a word that is foreign and scientific sounding, and immediately go to the irrational thinking of "nature=good" and "chemical=bad", and are compelled to comment.

This is the sad state of affairs in this country. Too many people with little or no understanding of basic science, having access to too much information they cannot digest.

To intelligently comment on these compounds requires a deeper understanding of chemistry and how these substances could possibly affect a small child in the amounts present in the shampoo. To date, nobody has any data on No More Tears baby shampoo causing cancer.

I've been asking someone to explain the mechanism all morning, I have no takers.

The quote is from a PBS article titled “Babies are polluted at birth, new report says,” which begins, “There are more than 80,000 chemicals on the market today, but only about 200 of them have been tested for safety. That’s because the Environmental Protection Agency can only require safety testing after there is proof that a substance poses a health risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 — the only major environmental regulation that has not been updated. Only five chemicals have been regulated since the law was enacted. As for getting rid of a dangerous substance — well, under the 1976 law, the EPA wasn’t even able to successfully ban asbestos, a known carcinogen.”

It continues, “A new report by the President’s Cancer Panel is calling for a major shift in how we regulate thousands of new chemicals that are introduced each year. The report says that children are far more susceptible than adults to being harmed by exposure to environmental toxins.”

Regarding the chemicals in this article, this article states, “According to the report, 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,” and that “1,4-dioxane, is considered a likely carcinogen.”

There are also “about 25 environmental, medical and other groups representing about 3.5 million people in the U.S. and other countries,” including Breast Cancer Fund, that demand these two chemicals be removed.

Kryss,

That's fine. But you are forgetting scale, and route of exposure.

As in my sunlight analogy. UV rays are known to damage DNA, and sometimes lead to skin cancer, which is why people are warned to limit their exposure, however sunlight is also necessary to help make the active form of Vitamin D.

Formaldehyde in minuscule amounts for an insignificant amount of time on the skin is not a cause to scream cancer. And a "likely carcinogen" in minuscule quantities is not sufficient to get something pulled from the market. So, how much formaldehyde, generated from quaternium-15 would a child be exposed to during a 5 minute hair washing?

Here's a fact sheet from National Cancer Institute on formaldehyde:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/formaldehyde

What has been done to protect workers from formaldehyde?

In 1987, OSHA established a Federal standard that reduced the amount of formaldehyde to which workers can be exposed over an 8-hour workday from 3 ppm to 1 ppm. In May 1992, the standard was amended, and the formaldehyde exposure limit was further reduced to 0.75 ppm.

You have probably been exposed to more formaldehyde in the time you typed your response than a kid getting his hair washed.

MarineDoc,

According to the EPA,

Average concentrations in older homes without UFFI [urea-formaldehyde foam insulation] are generally well below 0.1 (ppm). In homes with significant amounts of new pressed wood products, levels can be greater than 0.3 ppm.

I don’t know what the ppm for these products are. Many children stay in water used to wash their hair, and other body washes (not just shampoos) are included that contain these chemicals. Many children are given baths most days.

But there is no true “safe level” of formaldehyde or likely carcinogenic chemicals as there is with sunshine. There are government limits to those working with products (and adults will be less affected than children), and limits on products that have gotten more strict, but no amount of formaldehyde is “good” or even harmless for a person. I don’t see why a known carcinogen and “likely” carcinogen should stay in products for babies and children.

Kryss,

How about this. Is there an increased incidence of cancer among physicians? Why do I ask? Because most physicians have had FAR more contact with formaldehyde containing substances during training than a kid in a 5 minute bath of No More Tears. The answer is no.

but no amount of formaldehyde is “good” or even harmless for a person

Are you SURE you really want to make that statement? I mean, what if I told you that formaldehyde was necessary for metabolism and DNA synthesis...?

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/hot-topics/formaldehyde.html

Concerns about safety have focused on formaldehyde in part because high concentrations of formaldehyde can damage DNA (the building block of genes) and cause cancerous changes in cells in the laboratory. Although formaldehyde is diluted during the manufacturing process, residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in several current vaccines (see table below). However, formaldehyde does not appear to be a cause of cancer in man. Further, animals exposed to large quantities of formaldehyde (a single dose of 25 mg/kg or chronic exposure at doses of 80-100 mg/kg/day) do not develop malignancies. (One kilogram [kg] is equal to 2.2 pounds.)

The average quantity of formaldehyde to which a young infant could be exposed at one time may be as high as 0.2 mg (see table below). This quantity of formaldehyde is considered to be safe for two reasons:

• First, formaldehyde is essential in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids (the building blocks of protein). Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of natural formaldehyde in their circulation (about 2.5 ug of formaldehyde per ml of blood). Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 ml per kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found in an infant's circulation would be about 1.1 mg, a value at least five-fold greater than that to which an infant would be exposed in vaccines.
• Second, quantities of formaldehyde at least 600 fold greater than that contained in vaccines have been given safely to animals.

To be fair, it's unlikely that you would have known that, and it's also unlikely you would know that formaldehyde is an intermediate formed when the human body metabolizes methanol and other methylated compounds.

Formaldehyde is a carbon, 2 Hydrogens and an oxygen...that's it. So there's no structural difference or chirality between "natural" and "artificial" formaldehyde.

Again, it's a matter of scale, and route of exposure.

..... To MarineDoc...... No there hasn't been a certified case of someone dying of cancer from J&J Baby Shampoo... but there are several/millions of cases documented where people have died in water as a direct result of their inability to swim....!

LOL

AC,

It's good that you laugh at your own jokes, because it means that at least one person thinks you are funny.

So is it hard to type drunk?

MarineDoc,

If you’re still responding to comments, I have a few things I’d like to say and a few questions.

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia states, “However, formaldehyde does not appear to be a cause of cancer in man.”

I’m assuming this happened before it was classified in June (2011) as “known carcinogen” in the Twelfth Edition 2011 of the Report on Carcinogens, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service National Toxicology Program.

In their (Dept. of Health’s) report, they state: “Formaldehyde exposure is associated with key events related to carcinogenicity, such as DNA reactivity, gene mutation, chromosomal breakage, aneuploidy, epigenetic effects (binding to lysine residues of histones), glutathione depletion, oxidative stress, and cytotoxicity- induced cellular proliferation” (Lu et al. 2008, Guyton et al. 2009, NTP 2010).

And also:

“Absorption of formaldehyde from hand cream or suntan lotion was estimated at up to 0.1 mg for a typical application, assuming 5% absorption through the skin” (ATSDR 1999).

On the CDC/ATSDR Toxicological Profile on formaldehyde, they state,

“Children are more vulnerable to toxicants absorbed through the skin because of their relatively larger surface area: body weight ratio.”

and

“Ingestion of as little as 30 mL (1 oz.) of a solution containing 37% formaldehyde has been reported to cause death in an adult.”

This was reported in the NYTimes: “Frequent and intense exposures in manufacturing plants are far more worrisome than the intermittent contact that most consumers have, but government scientists said that consumers should still avoid contact with formaldehyde…”

Thad Godish, previous natural resources professor who directs indoor air quality research at Ball State, writes, “What level of formaldehyde exposure in a residence is safe? There appears to be no lower level that is safe for everyone. However, the lower the concentration, the lower the risk of adverse health effects.”

Regarding formaldehyde being endogenous, the Dept. of Health report states, ”Formaldehyde is an essential metabolic intermediate in the biosynthesis of purines, thymidine, and some amino acids…The endogenous concentration of formaldehyde in the blood of humans, monkeys, and rats is approximately 2 to 3 μg/g” (Heck et al. 1985, Casanova et al. 1988).

My questions are: If it is classified as a known carcinogen with no “safe level” given in the Health Dept. report, other than what is endogenous, what is the safe level? If you know the level, what is your source?

Related to that question, how do you understand this 1986 abstract, from the study “Endogenous Formaldehyde Does Not Produce Detectable DNA-Protein Crosslinks in Rat Liver” in the journal Toxicologic Pathology (specifically the last sentence)?:

“Formaldehyde is an electrophilic molecule able to crosslink DNA and protein. It has been found to induce tumors in the nasal epithelium in rodents. The safety margin between the maximum tolerated FA concentration in the work place and the concentration found to be tumorigenic in animal studies is very small. Because FA is produced endogenously as a result of a variety of oxidative demethylations, the assessment of the tumor risk from exogenous FA exposure has to be related quantitatively to the level of DNA-protein crosslinks induced by endogenous FA generation. It is reported here that the high level of endogenous FA formed in the liver after a large dose of methanol or of aminopyrine did not lead to any observable increase in DNA-protein crosslinks. Using positive and negative control data from in vitro incubations of liver homogenate with FA or methanol it is estimated that the endogenous level of DNA damage in the liver must be more than three orders of magnitude below the damage observed at tumorigenic concentrations for the rat nose. The fact that FA is formed endogenously cannot, therefore, be used to claim that exogenous FA merely leads to a negligible increase in DNA damage.”

Hey Kryss,

First, congratulations on writing a well researched post. That's an achievement around here.

I don't think one can't establish a "safe" level of formaldehyde. How would one design an experiment in humans? What can be established is an exposure limit which often times is well below the known limit that causes illness. I think I linked to that in an earlier post.

About the guy drinking formaldehyde...30ml of 37% solution of formaldehyde is ALOT of formaldehyde. I suspect the pathway to eliminate the substance was overwhelmed.

About the paper you quoted...this is from the discussion section (I linked to the entire paper if you want to read it):

Casanova-Schmitz and Heck (2) have shown that a significant increase in DNA-protein crosslinks is produced in rat nasal epithelium after inhalation of 6 ppm FA, i.e., a concentration that leads to a borderline increase in tumor incidence after life-span treatment. This means that an increased yield of IF- DNA is detectable in situations that are tumorigenic for the animal. On the other hand, in the liver, the main site of endogenous FA production, treatment of rats with methanol or aminopyrine did not result in a detectable increase in DNA-protein crosslinks. An attempt is made below to compare these two situations quantitatively and to relate the data to the level of endogenous FA production. For this purpose, three steps were taken.

6ppm is more than 6 times greater than is allowed by OSHA for industrial exposure.

So they are asking why an increase in formaldehyde from exogenous exposure increases DNA damage, but inducing a similar amount in the liver did not. http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/14/4/462.full.pdf

I think it would be quite a leap to compare this situation with trace amounts found in shampoo. Remember, the amount of formaldehyde in shampoo is

1. Minuscule

2. Topical (not exogenously ingested)

3. Has limited exposure time

4. And diluted (rinsed off) with large volumes of water very quickly.

I don't recall, but have we established how much formaldehyde is formed in a shampoo bottle? And how does that compare to what you are breathing while sitting in front of your computer screen right now?

Good post.

One more thing, Marine Doc...

The shampoo is made with a chemical that breaks down into formaldehyde. It's not as if it has formaldehyde in the formula. Stability data on the formula would show whether dangerous degradants are formed during the shelf life. The stability data shows no formaldehyde, so no problem. When those chemicals are washed down the drain, into the sewer, could it eventually form? Sure. But J&J knows that the product when it sees the baby does not have any dangerous elements in it for the life of the product. Hence, no reason for action. Activists don't realize that the baby doesn't ever see the degradant they're yelling about.

Penguin,

Good point. Thanks for talking about the stability data, I hadn't thought of that.

There are a lot of things you haven't thought of...!

Oh... and by the way....MarineDoc".... I found this interview that clearly and without a doubt speaks in the tone and speed in which you will clearly understand.... The interview also has a remarkable resemblance to how I perceive what you have written in all your posts... and it also includes a lot of scientific facts that I'm sure you are familiar with...!

I'm not saying that you sound like this... I'm just saying that this is what I hear, and what I'm sure others do also when you write something...

Oh and... since you like laughter... here's another ...."LOL"....

What exactly are you babbling about? Decaffeinated coffee, my friend...and perhaps an intervention.

MarineDoc and penguin:

Here is something I found about the release of formaldehyde:

Formaldehyde donors are preservatives that, in the presence of water, release formaldehyde. Therefore, cosmetics preserved w/ such chemicals will contain free formaldehyde; the amount depending on the preservative used, its concentration, the pH of the product, its age, and the other ingredients in the cosmetic…Quaternium-15 releases the largest amounts of formaldehyde, followed by diazolidinyl urea (others listed here)…There is only fragmented data on the amount of free formaldehyde in cosmetics preserved with formaldehyde donors. However, all releasers can—in the right circumstances of concentration and product composition—release over 200 ppm formaldehyde…Whether this is actually the case in any particular product cannot be decided solely on the basis of ingredient labeling. Thus, patients allergic to formaldehyde should avoid stay-on cosmetics preserved with quaterinuim-15…

-From the book Contact Dermatitis, Jeanne Duus Johansen, Peter J. Frosch, Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin

Now, I understand J&J shampoo is not something that will be left on babies and children, but they are exposed most days for up to half an hour or so a day, and, as I mentioned many times earlier, they are more susceptible to toxins.

My question to you is how much formaldehyde occurs in the product, or the product diluted in a small amount to regular amount of bathwater (if you want to get closer to the real-life situation)?

Kryss,

However, all releasers can—in the right circumstances of concentration and product composition—release over 200 ppm formaldehyde

Thanks for the post...I think I'm starting to understand where the Environmental Working Group got their 200ppm number.

I address it here #20.22

After you read the link, that 200ppm number won't make much sense.

People protesting the use of quaternium-15 would have been better served going after the allergen effect of the product...not making some big deal out of it potentially causing cancer.

Now, I understand J&J shampoo is not something that will be left on babies and children, but they are exposed most days for up to half an hour or so a day, and, as I mentioned many times earlier, they are more susceptible to toxins.

How long do you think baby baths are??? My daughter's 2.5 months old, but even with my slow speed, the shampoo's on for a few minutes at best, and the bath itself takes less than 10 minutes in the baby tub.

My question to you is how much formaldehyde occurs in the product

ZERO. Preservative is in the product, but not formaldehyde. Again, this would be found in stability testing, so it's not a concern if stability (i.e. real life situational data) shows no presence of formaldehyde.

However, all releasers can—in the right circumstances of concentration and product composition—release over 200 ppm formaldehyde

This might be true of the pure chemical, but you've got to remember that this preservative is around 0.1% of the formulation. So that 200 ppm quickly becomes 0.200 ppm when viewed in context.

Whether this is actually the case in any particular product cannot be decided solely on the basis of ingredient labeling.

And this is the crux of the argument. You're crying foul because it's on the ingredient list, but even the source you use for your argument states that you cannot judge the potential "release of formaldehyde" based solely on what the ingredient list says, primarily because it's in the formulation at such a low level. Thanks for proving our point!

MarineDoc and penguin,

As babies begin to sit up, they do usually receive longer baths. Children older than 1 are often in the tub 20 minutes or more, I would guess. The product also comes in direct contact with skin.

The report from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which has been widely accepted (I haven’t found any reputable criticisms of its methodology or findings, and it has been widely included in news reports), has been reporting “real” results—that is, how much each product contains in the bottle. Their website claims:

“[S]taff searched Skin Deep to find commonly used baby and children’s products likely to contain contaminated ingredients. Volunteers from eight states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, NewYork and Washington) and the District of Columbia bought samples of those products, which were sent, unopened, to Analytical Sciences, an independent laboratory in Petaluma, Calif., for testing.

A total of 48 products were tested for the presence of 1,4-dioxane and 28 of those products were tested for the presence of formaldehyde. At least one sample of each product was tested. In some cases, multiple samples were sent for testing to see if there was variability from batch to batch of the same product.”

Regarding the 200 ppm level--As I mentioned, Contact Dermatitis from 2011 uses that number, stating, “However, all releasers can—in the right circumstances of concentration and product composition—release over 200 ppm formaldehyde.” The 1997 edition states: “One study found that formaldehyde can trigger skin reactions at levels as low as 250 ppm.” (Importantly, it continues: “Formaldehyde sensitivity may not appear at the first exposure. Rather, with each additional exposure, a person may become more likely to develop a sensitivity to formaldehyde. To help prevent developing formaldehyde allergies, contact dermatitis specialists recommend that children avoid exposure to products containing formaldehyde.”)

The European Union limits formaldehyde concentration in cosmetics to 0.2% (2,000 ppm). Warnings must appear on products containing more than 500 ppm.

Hi Kryss,

Really, it wouldn't matter if the kid took long luxurious baths in a vat of undiluted No More Tears shampoo. I suspect he'd be fine unless he had some sort of allergic reaction to one of the ingredients.

Bottom line, there's no significant amount of formaldehyde in the shampoo. If there was if there were only 1% of that number, you would know it when you opened the bottle. Penguin explained that already, and very thoroughly.

“One study found that formaldehyde can trigger skin reactions at levels as low as 250 ppm.”

At 250ppm, formaldehyde can do alot more than "trigger skin reactions" (please read the link to the other thread I provided above).

I don't think 0.2% means 2,000parts per million.

Here, I'll reproduce a version here:

From the Occupational Safety and Health Guide for Formaldehyde Potential Human Carcinogen

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0293.pdf

Warning Properties

1. Odor threshold: 0.8ppm (formaldehyde has a very distinctive odor that stays with you for days...ask any med student)

2. Eye irritation levels: In acclimated workers, mild to unpleasant irritation occurs at 2-10ppm, and intolerable irritation (tissue damage possible) occurs at levels above 25ppm.

From the Reference Data sheet from Meridian Engineering (which references OSHA data)http://www.meridianeng.com/formalde.html

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA^7,8
Reported short-term effects of inhalation of formaldehyde gas include bronchitis, pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs), inflammation of the lungs and respiratory tract, pneumonia, and respiratory failure resulting in death. Lower concentrations (2 - 3 ppm) can cause tingling of the nose and back of the throat, but tolerance to higher concentrations can occur in some individuals. Most people can tolerate 4 - 5 ppm for up to 30 minutes, but after that time period discomfort increases. Breathing becomes difficult at 10 - 20 ppm. Serious injury is likely to occur with brief exposures to 50 - 100 ppm, which could cause edema (fluid build-up) in the lungs, inflammation of the lungs, and death. Pulmonary edema can develop several hours after exposure to these high concentrations. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has established a tentative IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health) value of 30 ppm. This means that exposure to that concentration for thirty minutes or more could result in permanent injury or death. ⁹

I haven't heard of any kids coming in with flash pulmonary edema after getting their hair washed with No More Tears shampoo.

The numbers you are quoting simply don't make sense. Keep in mind this product is used probably a billion + times, and there are no reports of formaldehyde-related injury to kids using this product.

Skin contact with formaldehyde solution can cause irritation, and drying and reddening of the skin. Long-term contact can cause sensitization of the skin, resulting in a rash or eczema. Subsequent exposure to low concentrations may cause a recurrence of the rash. Formaldehyde is not absorbed through the skin.

Eye irritation may occur at formaldehyde concentrations of about 0.2 ppm, and tears will form at about 4 - 5 ppm. Massive and intolerable tear formation occurs at concentrations higher than about 10 ppm in most people. Contact of the eyes with concentrated formaldehyde solutions can cause severe eye irritation and injury and possible blindness.

Yeah...I think if it contained that much formaldehyde, it probably wouldn't sell very well.

Ingestion (swallowing) of formaldehyde is unlikely, but if it occurred it would result in irritation and severe pain in the mouth, throat, and digestive tract. Later dizziness, coma, and lowered body temperatures can occur. The methyl alcohol contained in formaldehyde solution could also contribute to damage to the optic nerve and possible blindness.

Long-term exposure to elevated concentrations of formaldehyde gas may cause respiratory irritation, obstruction of the airways, and impaired lung function. Formaldehyde does not accumulate in the body, since it is readily metabolized to formic acid, and then to carbon dioxide and water.

Laboratory tests have shown that formaldehyde can cause nasal cancers in rats exposed to a concentration of 14.3 ppm of formaldehyde for 24 months. Mice exposed to the same concentration of formaldehyde did not develop a statistically significant increase in cancers. In humans, numerous epidemiological (causes of death) studies have been done on various groups of workers exposed to formaldehyde. These have included morticians, garment workers, wood workers, foundry workers, painters, and barbers, among others. To date, there do not appear to have been any statistically significant increases in cancers at any site in humans. Many of these studies have suffered from lack of exposure and smoking history data. Due to cancers found in animal studies, and the limited and controversial human epidemiological studies, both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) consider formaldehyde to be a possible human carcinogen, and regulate it accordingly.

Penguin already stated that it doesn't contain formaldehyde anyway. If it did, in the quantities you are suggesting kids would be dropping dead left and right.

Stability studies show ZERO formaldehyde. Formula is stable.

Additionally, J&J issued a release today stating that the preservatives this group is compleining about have been being discontinued from use for the last several years. To date, approx. 60% of formulas containing these chemicals have been reformulated over the last few years.

Finally, the concentration of these chemicals is so minute that they are WELL within the realm of safe and non-toxic according to the FDA, European health authorities, and every other governing body. So while they're present, they're not in levels high enough for toxicity.

That being said, the reformulations have been taking place for years, so the activists' point is kind of moot, since the activities are already underway.

MarineDoc,

.2% is 2000pmm—rapid tables, an online conversion calculator can show this.

I understand inhalation is a completely different from dermal exposure. If this level (ppm) regarding formaldehyde mixed with liquid is incorrect, are all those sources wrong?

Why does the article “Determination of Formaldehyde in Cosmetics by HPLC Method and Acetylacetone Method” (Journal of Food and Drug Analysis ) state, “None of those products was labeled formaldehyde. The results showed that 53% of the samples were formaldehyde positive. The amounts of total free formaldehyde were between 3~165 ppm. All of them were less than 1000 ppm.”? How were these levels occurring in cosmetics? This article also states, “Limitation of formaldehyde content in Europe Union is 0.2%.”

Penguin,

What statement are you referring to—is it new to Nov. 4^th? They have said a few days ago they’re phasing these out.

Where can the stability studies you refer to be located (books, journals)? What experts can be quoted, or referred to?

And no, some items tested into the range that requires a warning by European standards. Some countries don’t consider any amount safe, and won’t allow any formaldehyde in children’s soaps—this last piece of information is from the article itself.

J&J claims they are phasing the chemicals out, and they may have been doing this for years. The point is for consumers to be informed. They can then help push them to do it completely, if the government won’t do it without pressure at this point.

I thought I had it in there--that Journal of Food and Drug Analysis article is from 2002. I'm using it for the ppm levels they're using, not the cosmetics they tested then.

Kryss,

Sorry, but something in your calculations is incorrect. I think I've already addressed that with the NIOSH and OSHA information I reproduced. 2,000ppm makes ZERO sense. It would be deadly.

I didn’t make any of these calculations myself.

That 2000 ppm (or .2%) level of the very upper limit allowed in cosmetics by Europe can be found in many places. For instance, an article from pubmed.gov (US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health [“Clinically relevant contact allergy to formaldehyde may be missed by testing with formaldehyde 1·0%”]) refers to this as fact : “Formaldehyde 2000 p.p.m., the maximum concentration permitted in leave-on cosmetics according to the EU Cosmetics Directive…”

The other source I used previously is the Journal of Food and Drug Analysis. Even the Personal Care Products Council, national trade association representing the global cosmetic and personal care products, states, “Likewise, the European Union's Cosmetic Directive allows use of formaldehyde in cosmetic and personal care products at a maximum concentration of 0.2 percent or 2,000 ppm (free formaldehyde).”

--Reuters newswire press release from Personal Care Products Council

Your calculation ppm to % was correct, my mistake. I'm wondering if there was some sort of carrier or resin in the mixture with formaldehyde in the cosmetics? There seems to be a detail that's missing because 2000ppm formaldehyde is not a small amount. It's probably something obvious that I'm missing.

Any chem majors out there who can resolve this?

Maybe I'll break out my old OChem book later this weekend (sorry...that's supposed to be a joke).

Regardless, the amount of formaldehyde in baby shampoo doesn't reach anywhere close to the levels in either of our examples.

The amount in J&J shampoo was found to be about 200 ppm. According to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, “Two samples of Baby Magic Baby Lotion tested by Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and EWG “contained formaldehyde at levels that would trigger warning label requirements in Europe (above 500 ppm or .05%).”

and

“23 out of 28 products – 82 percent – contained formaldehyde at levels ranging from 54 to 610 parts per million (ppm). Baby Magic Baby Lotion had the highest levels of formaldehyde.”

I have argued that children are more vulnerable to harmful chemicals (formaldehyde is now listed as a known carcinogen; 1,4-dioxane is a “likely carcinogen”) and that there is a cumulative effect with carcinogens.

Neither formaldehyde nor 1,4-dioxane need to be in children’s shampoos/lotions, and, as J&J has shown, they have been taken out without a change in effectiveness of the product. Until they are forced to be phased out/banned by the government, people should be informed and can vote and make purchasing decisions accordingly.

Kryss,

As with the disconnect with your 2000ppm statistic, and the listed affects on humans from NIOSH, and OSHA info I linked to, I believe there is something that's not right about all of the formaldehyde supposedly being found in baby products. I'm going to give you benefit of doubt that you are merely reporting information you've come across.

Bottom line, there's never been a connection between these baby products and cancer. Again, if those products contained that amount of formaldehyde, please explain why these kids weren't all being rushed to local emergency rooms with severe tissue damage and flash pulmonary edema?

Doesn't make sense.

I've cited the sources where I’ve gotten my information from. I will admit I don't know the difference between inhalation vs. dermal mechanisms and concentrations, but you admit you do not as well.

Specifically, why do you disagree with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, who reported that J&J shampoo has 200 ppm formaldehyde? This has been widely accepted (I haven’t found any reputable criticisms of its methodology or findings, and it has been widely included in news reports).

I think I've explained why I disagree a few times (please refer to #3.28)

If it is present in the amounts that you say, why has it not killed anyone.

If it IS in the amounts that your sources say, is it in a form or combination that is not available to be absorbed by humans (again 2,000ppm is quite a bit), and therefore no threat?

And what do you mean by "widely accepted".

By "widely accepted," I mean news sources are reporting Campaign for Safe Cosmetics' findings (about 200ppm in J&J shampoo, it reports, not 2000ppm, which I said was the upper limit for cosmetics in Europe) while providing a link to their study, and their findings are endorsed by groups like Breast Cancer Fund. As I have said, I have found no credible sources debating their findings.

If you disagree with these numbers, you disagree with Breast Cancer Fund, who does think this is an issue (meaning it is absorbed).

The dermatology reports I have provided state that some of it can be absorbed (I previously quoted ATSDR 1999 saying, "Absorption of formaldehyde from hand cream or suntan lotion was estimated at up to 0.1 mg for a typical application, assuming 5% absorption through the skin." Hopefully these products are not being used on children.)

If you have evidence otherwise, it flies in the face of what Breast Cancer Fund and others believe is a real issue, along with the chemical 1,4-dioxane.

Kryss,

News sources aren't proof that anything is accepted by the scientific community...which is the only community that really counts, whether you like it or not.

The Breast Cancer Fund is not a scientific organization. It's an advocacy group. They are not affiliated with any scientific organization. So, I'm under no obligation to agree with them. When they publish something in a peer reviewed journal, I'll be happy to read it. Perhaps you've confused them with one of the more reputable and scientific based organizations?

Your derm report doesn't address my question.

You still haven't proven that it is an issue.

What exact problems do you or others have with the report? What are your sources? My point is that no scientist has come out and found problems with the amounts that were found.

Breast Cancer Fund uses scientific research for its positions; they have lists of works cited (on their website).

The derm report simply shows formaldehyde can be absorbed, and at what rate, in hand cream, which is probably very similar to what happens with children’s lotions (like the ones studied in the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics' report).

Kryss,

It wasn't a scientific study. It wasn't peer reviewed. It wasn't published in a journal where the methods, statistics and conclusions could be scrutinized by other scientists or results reproduced. That's my problem. My sources? The Scientific Method.

Second. This group is interested in Breast Cancer. I've already mentioned that "cancer" is not one disease process.

Again, they are an advocacy group. They aren't scientists. They have an agenda, which leads to bias. I'm not saying they are right or wrong. I'm saying they haven't proved any point.

Yeah, that's nice about the derm report. Again, that's not what I was addressing. I'm wondering how they can have such HUGE amounts of formaldehyde in their products and people aren't getting sick.

I think we can easily move our conversation to one page--I'm going to be at page 10.

I talk about the way that our system isn't the best for the consumer there.

The results were pulled from an independent lab.

Sarah Janssen, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H. of Natural Resources Defense Council, Jane Houlilhan, M.S.C.E. of Environmental Working Group and Ted Schettler M.D., M.P.H. of Science and Environmental Health Network reviewed “the science reflected in this report.”

Again, neither of us seems to know the mechanism of absorption, so I’m not sure it’s worth talking about. If you can find something that says it truly doesn’t get absorbed, I’d be interested in seeing it.

No, they are all wearing glasses because they are on the computer or video games all the time. Much ado about nothing!

"No, they are all wearing glasses because they are on the computer or video games all the time."

NO, That doesn't change the eye - you're perpetuating a myth.

Schools now require vision checks before starting school on a yearly basis. They didn't back in the 80's. I had no idea I needed glasses until I tried on my friends. I suddenly could read the time on the VCR across the room. I had no idea I should be able to see that until I could. I told my mom and she didn't believe me, she thought I just wanted glasses to be like my friend. So it was a while longer before I was finally taken to the eye doctor.

I would imagine that the shampoo's were even worse back then with fewer regulations.

More children are wearing glasses.... source?

You get more formaldehyde from diet drinks containing saccharin and other artificial sweeteners than you do from J&J baby shampoo. Not to mention - you ingest that in larger quantities, more often, and have done so for a much longer period of time. Get it together man.

formaldehyde doesn't come from diet drinks, it comes from Aspartame which is IN diet drinks.... wood alcohol AKA methanol TURNS to formaldehyde as it rises above 86 degrees and then the worst part.... your body has one hell of a time trying to rid itself of this poison. C'mon man!!!!!

The only obvious thing I could think of, that would seem more kids have eyeglasses now, is that there are more "preemies" that survive - who may have to need glasses due to the higher oxygen they are under, causing some eye damage. But it's probably Amanda who is right - kids are just being tested better these days.

It's call near-sightedness. It's a symptom of constantly staring at things less than 4 feet from your eyes.

Stephen, unless there is a muscular defect in the eye, the human eye has the natural ability to adjust focus to accomodate the distance from a particular object one is looking at. That means, if you are staring at something four feet away, the muscles in the eye will adjust accordingly. And, if you are trying to focus on something 40 feet away, likewise, the eyes will adjust focus accordingly.

In a healthy eye, the distance from a subject of focus is irrelevant. The eye will automatically make whatever adjustments are necessary. It's sort of like the lens on a camera but, OH!, so much more efficient and complex.

In other words, watching a tv from four feet away, or playing video games will not effect one's vision.

Well, my parents always told me if I didn't stop, I'd go blind.

I've done enough research to disprove that myth, too.

That was a lie they told you so they didn't have to wash your disgusting sheets.

So formaldehyde is safe injected into our babies (via vaccine) but no no no don't put it in the shampoo.

Maybe we should play it safe and take it out of both.

I don't know about you, but my children were vaccinated with single-dose vaccines so there was no thimerosol. Only when your doctor uses a large vial where multiple syringes are inserted (thereby contaminating the vaccine), is that used. I think that is still the case with the flu vaccine, but I'm not sure.

You're right though, the needless chemicals added to preserve the bottom line of the manufacturer should be eliminated completely.

Yes, if you look up the ingredients list in vaccines, it is quite disturbing. Not only thimerosal is added but also formaldehyde and aluminum. I am not anti-vaccine just anti bad ingredients. There is a big difference!

Unfortunately, most doctors do not offer single dose vaccines anymore.

Thimerosal hasn't been in vaccines since 2001. Formaldehyde and aluminum have never been part of the ingredients list.

What a ration of bushwa.

Thimerosal hasn't been in vaccines since 2001. Formaldehyde and aluminum have never been part of the ingredients list.

Look up the list for yourself. It was taken out of some vaccines...not all. And aluminum and formaldehyde are in them as well. Do some research.

This site will not let me paste a link, but all you have to do is google "ingredients in vaccines".

I choose to pay more and buy natural shampoos for my children. Why can't I pay more to get natural vaccines?

Just because something is natural (i.e. found in nature) doesn't make it any safer than synthesized preservatives. Formaldehyde is natural...do you want that? So you're wanting companies to invest money in "natural" vaccines (a concept no one can actually define) so that you can feel better about yourself?

Well perhaps they react to other chemicals to allow it to be non tear formulated. Are you a biochemist Johnny? I know I am not but frankly I am exposed to chemicals every day that in large doses would be fatal. Dihydrogen Oxide is guaranteed death if you overdose on it and yet it is found in almost every product that you purchase for both consumption and cleaning.

Because when you have cancer its impossible to detect what caused it through out your life. All identifiable sources of chemicals that are known to effect cancer rates need to be removed even if they have to raise the price by 10 cents.

GreenDream,

Your comment is the best I have heard (read) supporting the removal of the chemicals. Thank you for your input; that is sincere.

You are starting to sway the crowd in your favor.

If they are known carcinogens, why are they in the shampoo in the first place?? What benefit do they add to the shampoo?

Quinn

Read the article again. Slowly this time ......

More to the point (already made in the article) if these compounds are NOT in the product being sold to our allies in Europe WTF are they still in ours? Want to bet longer shelf life and warehousing greater quantities, in other words profit at any cost, is a part of it?

We'll beat up the Chinese when they ship lead painted toys to our kids - despite that not being necessary (or more than just a potential risk) BUT when it comes to a Anglo brand multinational corp like J&J well out come the apologists to call everyone hippies and over-reactionary. Spot the hypocrisy!

BobB., nice joke about water!

People often forget that damn near everything in our "modern" lives contain ingredients that you would want to stay away from if you knew about it. This doesn't just include chemicals and synthetic agents, but also the fact that fossil fuels like oil are found in practically everything as well. There is a serious question posed about how we can keep what land, food and water we have left untainted when everywhere you turn there is a man-made or man-added somethin' or other interacting with it. I don't think people should so cleanly brush off this article as "the troublemakers are at it again!" Whether you agree with this or not (I just learned about it in this here article), you should further explore how we are indeed, far removed from the natural systems that produced us. I'm no different than the rest of you in that I too love my modern conveniences, but there will be a point when it presents forced change into an uncertain future.

For those who claim that there isn't evidence, I wish to ask you (seriously) how would you detect something like that? I would imagine that being exposed to something when you are young having an effect on you decades later wouldn't be as easy to associate as, say: eating lead paint chips causing mental retardation or working in a coal mine leading to black lung. I wonder how somebody would trace such a thing considering the vast quantity of varying exposure we have with who- knows-how-much of who-knows-what? I'm not a tree-hugger by any stretch of the imagination, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to do a little bit to help.

Ah, who am I kidding? There are still millions who choose to smoke a cigarette full of harmful chemicals just to let it kill you slowly w/o so much as a nice, long high in return- only to throw out of your car window on the highway. Yeah, its those people that usually argue about how they don't care what they ingest.... until they look at their children's faces from a hospital bed. What's the difference b/w dying from an ingested chemical and dying from a sport or a job or a drive through the country? I doubt you really needed that chemical in the first place... and therefore, you could have easily prevented it without impacting your quality of life.

PS. the treehuggers piss me off sometimes too. Always blaming cars when there are way more things that pollute way more than cars. I mean, seriously! A little research and a little thinking never hurt anybody.

if miniscule amounts of these chemicals are ok...add up all the chemicals you get on a daily basis...why are these chemicals showing up in newborns....why is the cancer rate here in the US- 1 in 3. I think the more you read, the more you will be concerned.

Su,

How much 1,4 dioxane and quaternium-15 is lethal? By which route? Also, by what mechanism is "cancer" caused (that's a trick question)? Also which cancers are caused by these two ingredients?

Ok MarineDoc.... I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're a real doctor, not just a wannabe one and then ask YOU for the answer to your question. Come on, if you're a real doctor, dust off one of those med school texts and tell us already!

The chemicals aren't needed for anything other than preserving the ingredients in these products, therefore preserving the profits of the companies who rampantly use them in their products. I would love to go through the one of the houses of the Johnsons and check what they're using. You think they're using their own junk? Sure they are.

And why would I do your work for you? Do you really think the "prove that you are a doctor thing get's me all flustered?" :)

Nah. I'm not going to let Su off the hook. She made the challenge, it's on her to prove her point.

But, I'll do this for you...since you want to rid your lives of these ingredients, I'll start you off. This should keep you busy for the next few hours.

http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/household/brands?tbl=chem&id=1419

It must really suck to be so afraid of scary "chemicals". Pssst. EVERYTHING has a chemical name...even your super organic foods.

Actually, I was just giving the prodding you were hoping someone would give you so you coule impart your knowledge on everyone.

Trust me, nothing could disinterest me more than trying to fluster you. I give all that energy to my husband!

Thanks for the "link", but I am more than capable of selecting my own sources of reading and comprehending, so I don't need a link from someone I don't know to do it for me, but hey, thanks for going to the trouble to post the link in here for others who want to keep themselves busy for hours... you're so nice!

I'm not afraid of chemicals Marine, I just choose to educate myself and not have myself or my family ingest them needlessly. Enjoy that aspartame filled Diet Coke... all in the name to save yourself a teaspoon of sugar! Maybe there's more sugar than that... hmmmm... I don't drink colas of any kind.... adds inches to the waistline doncha know!

I don't fluster easily (...although the willfully ignorant tend to make a certain vein on my temple more prominent), so maybe if you dialed that snarky tone back a bit, we might have a decent conversation?

The "link" as you put it, wasn't from some random blog. It's from the "Household Products Database, and has a wealth of information. It's put out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health (you can tell by that nih.gov thing)...which most people with a working knowledge of science think is a pretty good source. But if you prefer mommy blogs...suit yourself.

I just think people should take a deep breath before going off half cocked about some new health scare. By the way people are talking, one wold think kids were getting oncology referrals with every bottle of "No More Tears" shampoo. When in reality...there's been no link at all.

I'm not afraid of chemicals Marine, I just choose to educate myself and not have myself or my family ingest them needlessly.

You have no idea how funny I find this sentence. If you would really like to "educate" yourself, you would open any high school freshman level biology book to figure out why the sentence you just wrote is so hysterically funny. If you and your family did not "ingest chemicals" you would die.

I don't like Diet Coke (or really any of the Cola products). But I will say that I prefer sugar...it's only 16 kcals per teaspoon, and since I'm not and never have been worried at ALL about being overweight, it's not a big problem for me to avoid diet products. (31 inch waist for the last 25 years, dontcha know....).

But what's your problem with Aspartame? Scary chemicals....ooohh.

J&J's two responses: $2. Coupons.

Schwartsy - another couple of words. No harm, no liability.

On what evidence would the class action lawsuit be based?

So many questions Marine.... so FEW answers from you! Come on.... you can do it! Pleeeeeeeeze???????????? You have so many interesting things to say so we'll be waiting with bated breath.

If people with big mouths and small brains thought things through more thoroughly before hitting "Post Comment" I wouldn't have to ask so many questions.

Apparently, you don't know me. I suggest clicking on my name up there and reading through all of my commentary.

..... MarineDoc..... sound a little "flustered" in your response there about the "big mouths" and "little brains"....LOL.... Who specifically were you referring to anyways...? ... Lemonverbeena? You are a bad judge of people then...!!!!

By the way... Aspartame makes you gain weight .... amongst other documented things.... and just because you have kept your "girlish figure" for some odd years, that is due to your "high metabolism"... not all people have this...but you should already know this if since you are who and what you are trying so desperately to be here on this site/topic....right?

Just because the label on something says "0 calories", doesn't mean that it won't get you fat... it has "0 calories" in the can, but when you open it and digest it, when it mixes with your (not yours) unique body chemistry, calories are formed... which is why some people get fat and others don't also....but again... "Doc" you already know this...right?

What it appears you don't know, is that everybody is born with cancerous cells... in some they develop... in others they never do...look it up...and not on "Wikipedia" ...LOL... that is not a reliable source for everything or anything to do with science... but then... hopefully, you know that simple non science/commonly known fact as well ... right...?

Oodles of scary facts ... huh? ..... or slaps whichever way you receive them in your mind...?

LOL

when it mixes with your (not yours) unique body chemistry, calories are formed.

So what you're saying is that a substance with no caloric energy mixes with something else and actually creates energy in the form of calories? I may not be a nutritionist, but I do know that this violates the laws of energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

You are misusing the statistics about diet drinks and weight. It is not the diet drinks that cause people to gain weight. It is that the diet drinks are consumed more often by heavier people, thereby skewing the statistic. So an average person drinking regular cola is 120 lbs and an average person drinking diet is 150 lbs...that doesn't mean that the diet drink makes you gain 30 lbs!

Everyone is born with cancerous cells? Where the hell do you get this misinformation??? Oodles of scary Internet rumors do not make facts, AC.

Do you realize that your "Bold" is on? It's more than a bit annoying.

AC, I was talking about you, you have fantastic timing. Kind of like a Whack a mole, you popped right up. Thanks!

My physique is from not eating like a pig and moderate exercise. I know...too simple for a "Secrets to staying thin" book. Please, don't talk about "metabolism", your errors will only make me nauseous. Why are you talking about "0" calories? Did you not read my post? I prefer good old, 16kcal sugar in my sugary drinks. Mmmmm. Penguin took care of that point nicely.

Everybody is born with cancerous cells....? You sure about that? Maybe you want to reword it a little, change or add some words? Here, I'll help you out, again I'm a really nice guy. http://molbio.med.miami.edu/Medical/Vogelstein-The%20Multistep%20nature%20of%20cancer.pdf

I know that you, as a recent graduate of the University of Google, studying under the esteemed Dr. Wikipedia, believe that you are at the top of your game. This is a common mistake of new graduates. Maybe you want to do some post-doctoral training--perhaps at one of those old fashioned "brick and mortar" institutions, I think they are called community colleges. Amazing places, you might learn something.

Bye Whack-a-mole. You have great comedic timing!

Sorry ....MarineDoc... but I'm like a lot of others who prefer to choose my own reading material from "reliable" sources, and not from pandering vendors online such as yourself.

And by the way... name calling only reinforces the fact that you are having trouble with your own identity...!

By the way... you seem flustered... oh yeah...I mentioned that, and you reinforced that statement as well...

Bye.... LMAO... at you

Doesn't get much better than Bert Vogelstein...but suit yourself.

And the rest of the world is returning the favor....

I want to know how people lived to their 90's and above using J&J's products this not being an issue.

You are not so smart.

One

Unhealthy are the people still "buying" it and then whining about it being unhealthy .....

The non toxic shampoo is 2x as much as the "Normal" one. If you are on a budget, like most new parents are, then which are you going to buy? Just part of "Agenda 21" sterilization project, nothing to see here, move along in an orderly fashion.

I find myself constantly wondering how I lived to be 27 when everything I touch is apparently killing me. Realize this....if these "groups" didn't have "studies" that "conclude" that the world is ending, they'd cease to exist....

"Realize this....if these "groups" didn't have "studies" that "conclude" that the world is ending, they'd cease to exist...."

He said in defense of a international corporation who fights safety & trade regulations...and sells the safer products to europe and other places but not here. Realize this - the hypocisy is hard to miss.

I want to know how people lived to their 90's and above using J&J's products this not being an issue.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. People ingest poisonous substances all the time (smoking/drinking) and yet they live. That doesn't make them any less poisonous.

What about the tons of people that ARE dying from cancer? Studies are trying to determine what might be causing them and dioxins seem to be a big contributor. So get off your "I drank mouthwash as a kid and survived so it's not harmful" high horse and try looking at the facts.

Regarding notsosmart's comment "I want to know how people lived to their 90's and above using J&J's products this not being an issue"

Also - Formulations change...it's possible the current formula that contains the chemicals in question is not the formula that a person might have used 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. I think as time has gone on many formulations of many products have been changed to better help companies maximize their profits...quite possibly at the greatest expense (health) to consumers.

I think I'll buy some more J&J stock today.

Joemike, you're not very bright, are you? Johnson & Johnson has had literally dozens of product recalls in the last two years. It is a company headed for disaster because it has let its lust for short-term profits override any kind of intelligent management. But you go ahead and use all your money on Johnson & Johnson, m'kay? Tell us how that works out for you. While you're at it, why not also invest in Governor Corzine's fund, too.

Damage control eh. Some things are worse than death.

Sometimes activists groups become fanatical when the truth is stretched to myth, and then becomes urban legend. Until someone provides data with cancer rates, I am going to dismiss this as nothing more than a waste of reading time.

What's that Johnny? I couldn't make out what you were babbling.

hmmmm, Mike Hunt-1854579, you provide an interesting perspective. I guess people become more sensitive to the issue when its a product to be used on babies ... but yeah without hard facts, its like a chasing in the wind, however, i generally believe that most man made things (esp food) could potentially be carcinogenic.......oh well.

Hey Blond Smrt Chick,

I think you are correct. I also think that more detailed or specific information should have been included in the article. All we can do is comment on what was presented. I genuinely (without sarcasism) appreciate your input and comments. Americans need more people like you.

A agree with you totally also, I commented yesterday on a Halloween article where people are still talking about razor blades in apples or poisened candy. there has not been one police or hospital documented case of either yet some 30 years after this is still a urban myth that in my oppinion has taken some of the fun and culture out of US Halloween. Untill there is proof that these low amounts cause harm I think I will continue using these product on a 4th generation of my family. Better to go with 40 years of something known than a fly by night "organic" that has no testing.

It is mild and safe for babies. Adults too.

It is mild and safe for babies. Your children have a higher risk of getting skin cancer from being out in the sun for a day.

Absolutely, all kinds of dangerous radiation comes from the sun.

Haulin' Oats, here's a clue...marketing lies to you.

It seems some of the people on this site are obsessed with the Koch brothers, I wonder why you aren't obsessed with George Soros, who finds it fun to destroy a country's financial system, i.e. England. I guess its okay to destroy someone's currency, but the Koch brother's every breath is criticized. I'm pretty sure they don't have anything to do with baby shampoo

Nice Janet....Way to nail those fox talking points. Look up the Koch brothers. If your concerned with Soros, you should be very very concerned with Koch. It seems those at fox are obsessed with Soros. but yet ignore the Koch, now why would that be? Now get back out into that pasture and start spewing some more fox talking points....bhhhaaahhhh...

Never heard of them until I came here.

888

Funny again .... and that's all folk's!

"I'm pretty sure they don't have anything to do with baby shampoo"

Why might they be lumped together? Well for one thing Kotch Bros & Johnson&Johnson are members of ALEC (the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council) who work on effecting U.S. policy-making. The organization was founded in the early 1970s to promote free market policies at the state level and has fought against restrictions on pollution, regulations of commerce and immigration reform. In other words protect the profit for the ivory tower - usually at the cost of the consumer & air breathers.

Funny how Nixon (R) created the EPA (and wanted universal health care for all) and Ted Roosevelt (R) created the bones of the FDA and like Ike (R), with his tax-spending on infrastructure and civil rights oriented Judicial appointments, were all progressive yet would look left to center of today's partisan hacks. Ike said beware the military industrial complex - I think that might have included the broader corporate oligarchy if he knew how the middle class would be screwed over for the sake of making another buck for the ivory tower elitists. Yet those saying they "want to take our country back" want anything but regulations or oversight. Welcome to Bizzaro - where we'll accept carcinogens that our allies won't and will apologize for expecting corporations to not screw us over for a buck. Looking at my mutual funds & 401K's the last 11 years I can't say treating corporations as people has made up for the losses on every other facet.

And since your parents used it for so many years you have what health defects from it?????? I think you are a fool already if you now want to stop using their product just because it has chemicals in it? Well duh, even the liquid soap you apply to your child has chemicals in them, the lotion you use on your child has chemicals in them, even some of those flame retardant PJ's have chemicals on them them, see where I am going with this?????

usa - Please don't confuse norgar with logic. The next sound you hear will be his little brain exploding.

All shampoos and soaps have chemicals in them. Another liberal scare story.

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not a liberal but instead of being a sheep to any political party I am an independent thinker who does not listen to the BS that is told to us everyday by both dumbass parties.

JoeMike, it appears your idiocy has no nadir. Shall we ignore all the product recalls, too? The medication being made in China when Americans are out of work? The fact that there are many more products that don't feel the need to put formaldehyde near infants' skin? Is Johnson & Johnson paying you?

..... usa is great .... Wow...I was beginning to think that I was the only sane upright who walked this planet...!

Your sanity is welcome...!!!

It's a laugh every time I read a comment by those who walk with their knuckles dragging, about how their politicians are better criminals than the other parties...

LMAO...!

Seriously. If you feel it's that big a threat (and there's no scientific evidence that using J&J baby shampoo causes cancer), just buy some other product. Why does everything have to be such a melodrama?

Johnny, Man the parapets, light your torches, grab you pitchfork, the villagers are goin' huntin' tonight!!!

I'd really like to know how the human race has lasted this long. It's freaking impossible and we should have all been deader than doorknobs a long time ago! At least according to the mythology of the pc-oriented left.

Come on people... Seriously? Let's say we go and remove the chemicals from J&J Baby shampoo... Ok - what's left? Let me grab the great big economy sized bottle I just bought and see what we have left ~ Water, sodium chloride (salt), and citric acid (the acid from citrus fruits - good for cleaning). So basically, we have salty lemon juice that has been slightly watered down. Do we really thing that's going to go over well with the 6 month old baby being washed or having their hair washed with it? Personally, I think that the citric acid would sting in the eyes. Besides, it has been used for years. We are fine, our parents are fine, our kids are fine... at least wiith regard to the baby shampoo... And where are you seriously going to find another tear-free baby shampoo WITH NO CHEMICALS in it? Let's get realistic. At least the directions say to gently lather, rinse and snuggle! What other product do you know, chemicals or not, that encourages you to snuggle with your baby?

Johnny is playing devils advocate here to gain attention.

Tyler is an ethereal god, defender of the vine, full of wisdom and compassion.

Working on some suck up points here just in case I need them someday.

Thanks, Tyler.

Burt's Bees products are great. No chemical additives, and while their stuff is a little more expensive than J&J products, they are higher quality and last longer.

Burts Bees is owned by Clorox. Not saying its bad just that it is also now owned by a huge profit driven corp.

I have an allergy to bees and I am almost afraid to use their products. Tried the lip balm. It just isn't all that good.

I hate to see the little guys sell out to the big companies. It changes everything. I am thinking of a dog food manufacturer that made great great dog food. They sold to a major manufacturer and now they are both exactly the same. I wonder how many folks and doggies they are fooling?

Miracle II products don't contain any of the known carcinogens and they work great. A gallon jug costs $50, which makes every 8 oz bottle about $6. It's extremely concentrated so it goes further than 8 oz of commercial shampoo. I know this article is just about the baby shampoo, but adult shampoos traditionally contain anywhere from 6-8 carcinogenic additives. Not a chance I'm willing to take.

Wake up, was that an advert?

No...I don't sell the stuff, I just use it.

I thought it was a crock of baby shampoo? With a moniker like Security Specialist I guess you wouldn't be one to hire to watch for the security of children. I think you just flunked the security test.

Well, I don't wash my mouth out with soap and I don't smear Pâté all over my body. What's your point?

Inhumane? Really? Where is even the slightest evidence that anyone has gotten cancer from J&J baby shampoo? No one is suffering and it's far from cruel to offer a product that is among the best for use on babies. Special interest groups need to get a life and stop blowing everything out of proportion just to get what they want (money, power, etc).

Ruby, your appointment with the psychologist is right after Johnny's, just hold on, it will be okay.

Hey how about disposable diapers. Their against the baby skin and god know what chemicals they may transmit. I assume you are willing to put these disposable diapers in you mouth as well.

My point is 60% of what you put on your skin is absorbed in your blood stream in a matter of minutes.

Children's bodies are small and because they do not have an adult's ability to detoxify and excrete toxins, they absorb proportionally higher doses of toxins per unit of body weight, which means that their organs may suffer permanent and irreversable damage more quickly because they are not fully developed.

Chemicals used in body care products have been linked to reproductive problems in both woman (e.g., endometriosis and the increasingly early onset of puberty) and men (e.g. falling sperm count and congenital birth defects of the reproductive organs) and to some cancers.

It has also been linked to developmental deficiencies and learning disabilites in children.

Chemicals should not be used in body care products, ESPECIALLY for infants!

Exactly, Green Future. Why don't we all go back to pre-industrial society? Things were far more natural back then. Everyone can start using cloth diapers again and homemade soap (that btw, was very harsh) and so on. After all, people were far healthier back then, right? They weren't? Really? Before all those chemicals came around, people weren't healthier? People didn't live as long? Rates of diseases were higher? So now I'm "confused"... everyone wants to complain about how things are today and yet we're living longer and are far healthier than we were hundreds of years ago. Someone is obviously bending the truth to suit their needs.

No, chemicals aren't good in high doses and yes, there are chemicals and other things that are very bad for you. Yes, organic is better. But that doesn't mean that you need to worry about everything that has chemicals in it. People start worrying about things like this and then they are upset if their child eats dirt or drops food on the ground and picks it up and eats it. They worry about their kids being exposed to anyone with a cold. They worry about their kids going outside. In the end, the child doesn't develop a good immune system because they aren't exposed to the various things that are necessary to help develop a good immune system. Why do you think vaccines include the disease? Because to develop an immune system to fight a disease, it has to be exposed to the disease. It's far better to develop the immune system through small exposures at young ages than to get exposed to something bigger later in life and have no immune system to handle it. Kids who play in the dirt almost always have a stronger immune system than those who aren't allowed to play in the dirt. They tend to be healthier. Overprotection backfires.

My child didn't wear disposable diapers.....he wore cotton and was potty trained at 2 years old.

@Ruby: I don't disagree that we're better off without chemicals. However, that doesn't mean J&J is dangerous. And it doesn't change the fact that this is blown far out of proportion by these special interest groups. Btw, "trace" as a unit of measurement is such a small amount that it's not measurable by other regular means. A trace is an very very small amount. It would be like touching something with the back of my hand and saying that the object now includes a trace of DNA. The amount of DNA transferred from the touch would be so small that it would barely register, but it would be there. It doesn't mean there is any significant amount. In fact, you probably wouldn't have enough to get a full DNA analysis. That's what "trace" means. It certainly isn't enough to cause problems even among infants who might absorb more per unit of body weight. 1 grain of sand on the entire planet is a far smaller percentage than 1 grain of sand on a single beach, but even on the beach, that 1 grain of sand is an extremely low amount. Just because the subject (beach) being exposed is smaller doesn't mean the trace amount is going to make any real difference.

@Ruby: And I was trained at 10 months. Your point? Are you saying that everyone should use cloth? Good luck convincing everyone.

You cannot be serious Ruby.

Okay, that's it. Everybody start making a paste of baking soda and bottled water. From this day henceforth, that's all you may use to wash your body, your hair, and your teeth. Minor amounts of peroxide permitted. When you start to stink, kindly keep your distance.

And please don't deplete the world's resources of yucca and soapwort.

But I don't like smelly babies...

http://www.supersoapmaking.com/the-history-of-soap-making.html

Yes. 'Pthalates' which are found in shampoos and soaps have been linked to autism. They are endocrine disrupters that mimic estrogen....since autism strike mostly boys...you connect the dots. Manufactures are quietly removing pthalates from baby products as a result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate

Yes, let's connect the dots. That's a mighty big leap from estrogen to autism (and even bigger from phtalate...). I'll give you benefit of doubt if you take me through the mechanism.

I think the study you are probably referring to (Swedish study a couple of years ago) was questionnaire based and relied on parents honest answers, and did not have any confirmatory data. That's not exactly definitive.

"That's not exactly definitive."

Perhaps but neither are the challenges here implying no one should care about the impact of "known carcinogens" yet that doesn't stop the peanut gallery from apologizing for J&J out of reflex and perhaps blind multinational corporation brand trust.

If the safer formulation is good enough for babies in Europe why not the USA? A cynic might say follow the money/lobby-efforts ;-)

Good point, there may not be a 'provable' link to autism but the other negative effects from phthalates are well known...despite the skepticism by some that all chemicals are good for us.

BPA is nearly gone from baby products, phthalates and PVCs are going too. I like to think that manufacturers are doing is for the public good rather than just for good PR.

Actually, fishmail the challenges are quite legitimate. Just because the majority don't understand biochemistry doesn't mean some don't have a good enough grasp to realize this protest has no merit.

Again, water and sunlight can be dangerous in the right amounts...

"Actually, fishmail the challenges are quite legitimate."

I disagree as the ones I see here are most reactionary and defensive of a corporation out of some blind faith. Some are just the usual push-back against anything progressive. A lot of it is dumbing down the issue with bad analogies (like yours). Tobacco had & still has plenty of defenders, either ignorant or on the take, before during and after the ample evidence of the biochemical impact of those products - they were not legitimate challenges to the changes to ban or minimize some product impact on our society (at least most of us).

"Again, water and sunlight can be dangerous in the right amounts..."

Right amounts? Those would be the WRONG amounts and those (red herrings "again") are quite necessary in some reasonable amount - only a fool mixes the safety of drinking water with drowning. Alternately to clean water NOTHING says formaldehyde is necessary or warranted to clean a baby's porous scalp and so what is "the right amount" of that? Forget trying to nail down amounts - what defends that other markets get the safer formulation but not ours (other than shills for J&J and those beating a drum to dereg everything for the sake of a buck)?

Fishmail,

"Shilling for corporations" is really such a played out gambit. I wasn't talking about safe water and drowning. I was talking about hyperhydration, also known as water intoxication. These aren't red herrings. Please don't jump to false conclusions. I'm sure you've heard of skin cancer, so I don't think I need to explain that. And about that formaldehyde...it's topical, and very small amounts. Explain the mechanism for causing cancer...or any other illness.

OK, let's try this: You give me a good, well sourced reason to believe that 1, 4 dioxane, and quarternium-15 in the amounts used in baby shampoo as a topical solution is a real threat to infant health, and I'll concede.

Floor is yours.

""Shilling for corporations" is really such a played out gambit."

And yet seems to apply so well to such strong objections to our children getting the benefit of less exposure to toxins compared to what allies of ours get for their children. J&J needs to step it up if they want to retain customer loyalty and a reputation as a source of infant products. I'm not sure what you find compelling in arguing against that. J&J botched this and had plenty of time to respond.

"I was talking about hyperhydration, also known as water intoxication. These aren't red herrings."

They are red herrings - water consumption is an absolute necessity while dioxane & formaldehyde (from quaternium-15) are not. You're equating extreme consumption of basic necessities against that of exposure to unnecessary carcinogens just because a chemical company hasn't switch formulas yet here (arguably because they haven't been forced to like in countries where they have changed).

"Please don't jump to false conclusions."

Please don't change subjects to obfuscate the point of debate which is really that these are NOT necessary compounds for the application and ARE suspected and known carcinogens and therefore more risk than necessary on infants. Accidental lethal water and sun exposure aren't the topic.

"OK, let's try this: You give me a good, well sourced reason to believe that 1, 4 dioxane, and quarternium-15 in the amounts used in baby shampoo as a topical solution is a real threat to infant health, and I'll concede."

I can't prove with specific source that says washing a baby in a tub of carbon tet results in baby or later cancer or toxisicty either but that doesn't mean I'd argue it's a reasonable procedure either.

No, while you're full of issuing challenges mine remains unanswered - lets try you give me a good justification for the INCLUSION of these specific toxins.

I'll save you from the effort & failure: It's already evident that they're not needed and aren't allowed in some countries and yet J&J successfully sells a product of the same name with the same claims of being effective and for pretty much the same low price in those countries (like England). That's a much easier end to a debate and much more substantive since it's a eventual outcome that keeps J&J and it's customers healthy & happy. Not sure how or why you'd defend a pro potential & known carcinogen stance and would need infant specific empirical studies when it's damned evident that other countries have mandated change and J&J has responded. J&J need to get their #### together for our market if they don't want increasing consumer awareness, and relevant findings on for example formaldehyde being classified a KNOWN human carcinogen, to effect their bottom line. Baby and known carcinogens are bad business combos at best.

I politely gave you the floor to make your case...and this is how you spend your time?

And yet seems to apply so well to such strong objections to our children getting the benefit of less exposure to toxins compared to what allies of ours get for their children

To which "toxins" are you referring? Since when are trace amounts of a molecule considered toxic?

You're equating extreme consumption of basic necessities against that of exposure to unnecessary carcinogens just because a chemical company hasn't switch formulas yet here (arguably because they haven't been forced to like in countries where they have changed).

Yes. Yes, I am. Because it's a matter of scale. You are probably breathing in more formaldehyde sitting at your computer, than some little girl getting her blond locks washed in a tub over the course of 5 minutes. That's the point. ANYTHING can be dangerous at a certain amount.

I can't prove with specific source that says washing a baby in a tub of carbon tet results in baby or later cancer or toxisicty either but that doesn't mean I'd argue it's a reasonable procedure either.

Then you should probably stop talking. Again, giving voice to rumor and innuendo doesn't help anyone. If you would like to champion something that kills THOUSANDS of children every year...I suggest talking about seat belts and loaded handguns in the home...but hey, the obvious child killers don't seem to be a fashionable topic on the Newsvine...just those scary mysterious things that the average person can't decipher, like chemical names.

This is why your high school chem teacher wanted you to pay attention. Some of us did.

Oh, yeah:

lets try you give me a good justification for the INCLUSION

It's worked for 50 years safely cleaning the hairs on generations of kids without burning the hell of of their eyes, and after billions of uses has yet to cause any demonstrable ill health effects. Not one incident of cancer.

Your turn.

"I politely gave you the floor to make your case...and this is how you spend your time?"

You're not the moderator giving floor time to others...nor a fair judge of content. And there's little that is polite about your patronizing tone so why pretend.

"To which "toxins" are you referring? Since when are trace amounts of a molecule considered toxic?"

Play coy but you know the chemicals we're STILL taking about. They make the ingredients list so it's not so "trace" that J&J can ignore it and likewise it's enough volume (not "a molecule") that they had to remove it for sale in England, Denmark, Japan, & South Africa, etc. Make up your mind - either it's enough that it was necessary to give the product some desired trait or it's "a molecule" that is too insignificant to be counted. Since J&J's stated goal is to eliminate or reduce to trace levels of these compounds, for US sales, then it's clear enough that they're NOT trace ammounts now.

"Then you should probably stop talking. Again, giving voice to rumor and innuendo doesn't help anyone."(snip)

You first. AGAIN there's nothing rurmor or innuendo about calling out unnecessary use of carcenogens in baby products. Spare me the rumor or inuendo accusation - it's on the freakin label and those compounds are on plenty of watch & warning lists. Classification to "Known carcenogen to Humans" (internationally and in US) isn't "rumor". This is about products already reformulated to be safer as required by other countries but not sold here for reasons J&J is keeping to themselves for the last few years (though they do claim to be moving in a direction of eliminating or reducing these to mere trace level - unlike now). Even from a J&J view, and I've done business with them in biomed before so I try to be fair enough to only judge their actions BUT also lack thereof, they best accept that a brand as strong as J&J's took a long time to be built - trust can be shattered easily and it's not entirely unjustified when customer's concerns are ignored. They better get down to it IF this US consumer products market really matters to them.

"It's worked for 50 years safely cleaning the hairs on generations of kids without burning the hell of of their eyes,"

Don't pretend you know the formulation over the last "50 years" other than the obvious that 'no tears' was due to neutral pH balance. We're talking about the formulation here & now wrt carcinogens now on dangerous to humans lists. The past isn't relevant & you seem to be ignoring the toxin free version sold NOW in England etc al works wonderfully and also without burning eyes etc (by all J&J claims).

"and after billions of uses has yet to cause any demonstrable ill health effects. Not one incident of cancer."

You can't begin to prove that presumption as cancer doesn't easily trace back to all otherwise known contributors to it's cause.

And it's still no justification for the need of those compounds - the proof that the product works as well without them is quite evident as they sell it in other countries with the same claims of efficacy and a low price YET no such carcenogins.

"This is why your high school chem teacher wanted you to pay attention. Some of us did"

Very smug. Maybe you should have focused on a logic class (or an ethics one). That you're defending the use of unnecessary carcinogens, unnecessary by proof of the new formulation pudding, is absurd. 2-3 years was plenty of time for J&J to have phased over the US to that new improved formulation (their claim in the UK).

Fishmail,

Fact: You cannot back up your assertion that either of these two compounds cause any kind of cancer in the amounts contained in the product.

Can you refute this fact?

I guess you don't quite understand the definition of toxin. But I'm really a nice guy...really, so I'll help you out:

Definition of Toxin

: a poisonous substance that is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism and is usually very unstable, notably toxic when introduced into the tissues, and typically capable of inducing antibody formation

You see, I happen to know the definition of this word. And I asked two questions. So again:

1. To which toxin are you referring?

2. Since when are trace amounts of a substance toxic...since one of the main concepts of toxicity is dose dependency.

You made the claim that these two compounds were dangerous, the burden of proof is on you. I'm still waiting. I'm very patient.

There are a lot of things that may contribute to cancer. Did you know having a great big beer belly can contribute to esophageal cancer?

So far you've done alot of screaming, but you haven't said anything of substance. Loud and angry does not equal correct. I invite you to back up, and make real statement. If you can't...again you should probably stop typing.

By the way, I loved my logic class, and I actually won an award for medical ethics in med school. Your move.

Paying attention in class isn't being smug, it's a fact. One of which I'm very proud. Maybe you should have, you might not be so afraid of scary chemicals.

And to be precise one is a potential carcinogen, and the other is thought to be a carcinogen--but the details that are missing is in what amount, and by which route.

I mean sunlight is known to be carcinogenic. It causes more cancer that either of these two compounds has been known to. The key here is the amount of exposure. You are trying to say that in ANY amount that these two compounds cause cancer. That just isn't so. You have no proof that they do. If you find some I'd be happy to discuss further.

I'm not trying to make you angry, I'm trying to point out the glaring flaw in your argument.

"Fact: You cannot back up your assertion that either of these two compounds cause any kind of cancer in the amounts contained in the product."

That's not my "fact" it's your setup. And you can't prove definitively that they don't "cause any kind of cancer in the amounts contained in the product". Cancer does't come with a return address showing where it came from possibly decades earlier.

What IS a fact is that exposure to carcenoggens can be cumulative to risk and they can be absorbed through the skin (the MSDS, even though out of date wrt new findings, for both concerned compounds/byproducts classify them as R40's and indicate gloved handling). Fact is that at least one of those 2 compounds is there to outgas a "known carcinogen to humans" - the later also not my claim but is a classification made by Intl. & US safety agencies. It is also a fact that such compounds are not necessary to the performance of such a product by evidence of the reformulation by J&J that eliminates it and J&J's protracted plans to make that change here...whenever they get around to it if ever - that's the problem resulting in groups calling them out on it. Opinion: Good for them to already have a reformulation - they shouldn't have put it off for so long at least in his market - it's a PR disaster and they deserve it given they were warned and are treating the market (like ours or any) with less care over chemical exposure risks than some other markets. Fact - cancer's causality can be difficult to trace backwards - that doesn't mean it doesn't have a cause. Arguably a common opinion: that's no reason to disregard unnecessary early exposure of infants to known causes of cancer or any other potential for harm. I don't expect we'll have a lab experiment proving that infants exposed to carcinogens causes cancer definitively...law suits and all the huge control group expenses for no real payback - I'm sure you can try to understand that's not so practical and why such hard proof is scarce.

"I guess you don't quite understand the definition of toxin. But I'm really a nice guy...really, so I'll help you out"

What you are is smug....and continue to miss the point that these compounds are not necessary and are classified as potentially and certainly carcinogenic to humans. Yes, I get that toxin is defined by organic origin vs toxic==poison which makes no such distinction. I work with a lot of PhDs & MDs and never knew one to try so hard to sidetrack a topic just for the sake of 1 letter semantics.

"You made the claim that these two compounds were dangerous, the burden of proof is on you. I'm still waiting. I'm very patient."

You're selectively argumentative. You expect others to have faith that compounds already classified as suspect and absolute carcenogens wrt humans (respectively) be simple ignored when specifically applied to infants in any quality -all to be dismissed. You profess knowledge of chemistry yet seem to not be a very good at chem applications eng. or observation beucase the reformulation exercise is already over and J&J is already selling that version to our allies. If you need more proofs then look up the MSDS for formaldehyde or dioxane. I know I don't need to walk you back to the reports from IARC or the US DOH&HS classifications & I suspect then you'd still just want to go back to exposure amount proofs YET will not be able to provide any reassurance on the application of formaldehyde on infants in ANY quantity as being safe. Why is that? How about an answer? I know...you consider every burden of proof mine - except it isn't my burden of proof becuase I don't represent either J&J or all the ciustomers who may boycott them for not providing the same products here as they do elsewhere.

"So far you've done alot of screaming, but you haven't said anything of substance. Loud and angry does not equal correct."

I think you're projecting. No loud or angry on this end - just typing.

"I invite you to back up, and make real statement. If you can't...again you should probably stop typing."

You 1st - you've still not responded to my original challenge of why these noted to be suspected & certain carcinogens compounds are necessary when substitutes are already proven out as effective. You're defending something J&J isn't even bothering to defend because they already know they had to satisfy higher safety thresholds in other countries and will likely need to do so here to satisfy customer demands.

"I mean sunlight is known to be carcinogenic. It causes more cancer that either of these two compounds has been known to. The key here is the amount of exposure."

Well the sun likely causes more cancer for humans than man derived reactor radiation too but I wouldn't argue unnecessary exposure to the later as being acceptable either.

"You are trying to say that in ANY amount that these two compounds cause cancer. That just isn't so."

Never "tried to say that".

"You have no proof that they do. If you find some I'd be happy to discuss further"

Those are your presumptions because you use it as an absolute & and excuse to demand your proof. Again I never said anything about no matter the amount. What I have argued is that A) Any amount, in this case, is unwarranted B) that the compounds are already obsoleted by J&J's reformulation and C) they are in fact classified with 1,4-dioxane being considered "a likely carcinogen" and formaldehyde (as an internal byproduct of ingredient Quaternium 15) WAS declared "a known human carcinogen" this past June by the U.S. National Toxicology Program and by he IARC.

"I'm not trying to make you angry, I'm trying to point out the glaring flaw in your argument."

I'm not angry - despite your obvious passive agressive provocations insisting I am - I'm simply unimpressed with your need for proof of how dangerous something is rather than accpeting we shouldn't need to find out - especially when it comes to infants.

Fishy,

That's not my "fact" it's your setup. And you can't prove definitively that they don't "cause any kind of cancer in the amounts contained in the product". Cancer does't come with a return address showing where it came from possibly decades earlier.

Actually it was a yes or no question. You realize that you can't prove a negative...right? Don't know much about cancer do you?

What you are is smug....

What I am is correct. You just can't bring yourself to admit it...good thing I don't need your approval.

You're selectively argumentative. You expect others to have faith that compounds already classified as suspect and absolute carcenogens wrt humans (respectively) be simple ignored when specifically applied to infants in any quality -all to be dismissed. Blah, blah, blah distract.

You can't back up your statements can you? It would have been easier to just say so. I don't believe in "faith" I believe in fact...check ALL of my past commentary. I'm very consistent. There's no evidence that either of those compounds in that formulary causes cancer in children.

Or do you know something the rest of us don't? If so prove it or stop typing.

You 1st - you've still not responded to my original challenge of why these noted to be suspected & certain carcinogens compounds are necessary when substitutes are already proven out as effective.

The burden of proof is on you. We've already established that. Please...stop with the low rent argument tactics. It's insulting. Step up your game. You've got nothing. I know you've got nothing. You KNOW that I know you've got nothing...so stop pretending, huh?

Not passive aggressive at all. Just letting you know that you are wrong. Terribly, and completely, on all points wrong.

What I have argued is that A) Any amount, in this case, is unwarranted

Yeah, that's what I said you were arguing. So, why do you believe that ANY amount is "unwarranted"...perhaps you believe that ANY amount causes cancer? Oh, yeah about the formaldehyde part...let me refer you to #3.10 thru #3.12 to catch you up on CH₂O...or formaldehyde.

I case you haven't noticed, you aren't telling me anything I was not already aware of Yeah, that's fantastic news about quaternium-15 aka methenamine. So what is the amount of exposure of formaldehyde? Which route?

This really isn't fair to you. In addition to the MD, I have a degree in Biochemistry and probably understand this stuff in more depth. Do you realize that formaldehyde is necessary for metabolism? Or that it's an intermediate byproduct when metabolizing methanol, or methyl containing substances?

Since you are "unimpressed" with my need for proof...why do you believe either of these substances found in No More Tears shampoo will cause your little one to develop cancer after a 30 second hair washing? What are you going on? Faith? Emotion?

Fact is...you have NO idea. All someone needs to say is "Babies" and you are ready to scream and yell even if you are completely wrong?

"What I am is correct. You just can't bring yourself to admit it...good thing I don't need your approval."

Yet here you are. (shrug)

Between calling me "fishy", insisting I'm shouting or emotional, and suggesting in a very passive aggressive manner I know nothing you're only showing your own insecurity and need for approval. That you haven't justified a need for these chemicals challenges your practical ability to apply the science you claim to be so adept at.

"The burden of proof is on you. We've already established that."

No "we've already established" the burden of proof was with you to give any justification for continuing to use these obsolete compounds.

Reason and responsibility dictates that chemicals should be only be applied to a baby in ones care based need to do so - not because some fools haven't yet received proof that despite being "known carcinogens dangerous to humans" (again I'm citing safety agency classification) they haven't yet correlated specific cancer cases to early and or long term skin & respiratory exposure to said carcinogenic compounds. What would be the motive for fighting that other than chasing a buck? And/or compete arrogance?

"This really isn't fair to you. In addition to the MD, I have a degree in Biochemistry and probably understand this stuff in more depth."

Maybe, maybe not. One really can't tell from the way you challenge for proof yet ignore the base logic that since these compounds have been proven to be obsolete for this application, by Johnson & Johnson themselves in overseas versions, there is zero reason to expose infants to them. Or are too much the researcher not enough the customer effacer in your work? I don't have that luxury in mine - I have to be both technical and get the big picture.

"Fact is...you have NO idea."

Fact is you don't either and are willing to ignore the facts about how these compounds have been reclasified as recently as this year for the worse. I'm saying lack of data is a good reason to err on the side of caution (don't miss this next part) -> given the compounds aren't necessary to the product AND are now classified as dangerous to some potentially relevant degree. I deal with laypeople and theorists like you all the time who get hung up on preconceived technical points and miss the forest of the functional needs including avoiding risks one can't definitively write off. You're so set on formula A with warts & all you miss that Formula B can replace it and leave the warts & related liability behind. You speak of can't prove a negatives and imply/presume blindly I don't know much about cancer - well I do know (again) that we often can't trace cancer definitively to it's cause given no way to isolate environmental factors and long time spans so for all you know these compounds, one of which by definition classified this year as a "known carcinogen to humans", can very well be more harmful than you will accept - and you don't have to accept anything if it's not your kids and is not your shampoo company(unless you are a shill). I see absolutely nothing wrong with eliminating substances, again one a known carcinogen to humans & the other a suspect one, from baby products and that's especially given the compounds provide no function better than that of substitutes. PERIOD.

"Since you are "unimpressed" with my need for proof...why do you believe either of these substances found in No More Tears shampoo will cause your little one to develop cancer after a 30 second hair washing?"

Asking the question again isn't going to make me want to answer it before you answer my original challenge. I never said anything about personal concerns of mine or any shampoo washing period (and even in that your argument treats it as though 30 minutes of a daily then cumulative exposure is insignificant to an infant who's still at a critical formative point).

"What are you going on? Faith? Emotion?"

The bigger question is what drives your insistence and defense of an obsolete use of these compounds of concern? Is it emotion? Are you a shill? Are you even the expert you brag to be? Can't tell from your lack of justification for these obsolete chemicals.

"All someone needs to say is "Babies" and you are ready to scream and yell even if you are completely wrong?"

This only proves how presumptuous an arse you're being. I'm not screaming anything and am not a kneejerk baby defender- I'm a practical engineer who's does well by not being deaf to market demands or risk mitigation. Logic dictates that compounds that are obsoleted, have safety classifications that are anything but considered desirable shouldn't need so many years or condemnation by public and doctors to get change.....that's right, doctors have been critical of this too (perhaps you have as little respect for other PhD's and MDs as you do for me but that's your emotional & professional problem).

Fishy (I like it),

You are just annoying. If you stopped with the vitriol for a few moments, you might realize I'm trying to help you see the OBVIOUS error in your arguments. But, you seem to be blinded by rage.

You are free to confirm everything I've written. I suggest the biochemistry section of your local library.

Where might I find confirmation of what you've written?

"Fishy (I like it),"

You resort to/attempt name calling yet I'm the one you accuse of being annoying, raging, screaming, and vitriolic? It's not very doctor like.

"You are free to confirm everything I've written. I suggest the biochemistry section of your local library."

No biochem book is going to justify what you've dodged. There's no functional need for these compounds we've discussed. Perhaps you should brush up on your logic.

"Where might I find confirmation of what you've written?"

You only needed to explain why you think these compounds should still be used despite their obsolescence and despite one's new classification as "known carcinogen harmful to humans". If you need that last quote confirmed I suggest you reread your own citations in earlier threads.

Fishy, Fishmail, Fishmeister, FishingBuddy,

You have already proven my point. The more you write, the more you prove that you don't understand the topic.

Scroll up through our conversation and ask yourself how much verifiable evidence you've provided? None.

While you are scrolling count how many times you've answered a direct question. I ask for your proof, you say "you first". I point you to my proof, and you continue to stall.

You only needed to explain why you think these compounds should still be used despite their obsolescence and despite one's new classification as "known carcinogen harmful to humans".

Sunlight is a "known carcinogen harmful to humans". Are you going to protest sunlight next? Or are you going to tell me that it is not a "known carcinogen harmful to humans"? The key is dose. Which is something that you've been avoiding.

You've been thoroughly beaten. Have a little pride. Move along...there will be other arguments. I suggest you challenge me on economic theory or car engines. I don't know anything about those topics.

May I suggest that you stop calling each other names? Stability data for the formula would show whether this preservative breaks down in the formula. J&J has that data, and it shows no breakdown into formaldehyde. So all this "is it a toxin/carcinogen" talk is worthless...the dangerous chemical is NOT in the formulation, and only after a different chemical breaks down does it show up. It's a preservative, so it's not going to break down in the formula during its shelf life. So the argument as to "would you put a carcinogen into the formula" is moot...it ain't there. Maybe when it washes down the drain it eventually breaks down, but when it hits the kid's scalp, it's still the preservative and not formaldehyde. So the argument of the activists is invalid.

Penguin,

Unfortunately, you probably aren't going to convince anyone here that quarternium-15 doesn't give off formaldehyde on the bambino's skin.

But even if it could form formaldehyde in the bottle....how much do you think could be produced? I can't imagine the yield from even one full bottle would be significant.

Good point, though. Fishmail, I leave you in the capable hands of Penguin, I'm sure you have lots of questions. I also believe Penguins are very fond of fish...

"You have already proven my point. The more you write, the more you prove that you don't understand the topic."

Insisting you're right is not the same as being right or making relevant points. J&J WILL stop using these compounds in question - bet on it.

"Sunlight is a "known carcinogen harmful to humans". Are you going to protest sunlight next?"

Sunlight isn't easily avoidable (and is necessary for synth of vitamin D). Not sure why babies need those other chemicals at all or why they shouldn't be able to avoid them....quite unlike the sun. The analogy wasn't necessary and isn't a good one.

"I suggest you challenge me on economic theory or car engines. I don't know anything about those topics."

Since you can't justify your answers now in a way that would satisfy this problem/situation raised (THE thread topic) I'm not sure why I would challenge you on things you claim you know even less about.

-----------------------

"J&J has that data, and it shows no breakdown into formaldehyde."

Where did you pull that from, Penguin? (channeling Batman)

From what I read the Environmental Working Group's case study of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo found "formaldehyde at just over 200 ppm,". Note that was in 2008 and before this years reclassifying formaldehyde as "as a known human carcinogen in its 12^th Report on Carcinogens". Now where are J&J's results posted and how do they differ?.....and why care as long as we get the UK version as they are now promising?

Also I've read CHE Toxicant and Disease Database lists good ole CH₂O as:

Cancer - moderate evidence - hematologic Cancer & respiratory

Just sayin' - it's not just laypeople/parents concerned about this - which you'd know if you look at who has signed on-to the petition of J&J to give the US the same formulation they give countries that insist on it.

I'm not buying the 200ppm statistics.

Why you ask? From the Occupational Safety and Health Guide for Formaldehyde Potential Human Carcinogen

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0293.pdf

Warning Properties

1. Odor threshold: 0.8ppm (formaldehyde has a very distinctive odor that stays with you for days...ask any med student)

2. Eye irritation levels: In acclimated workers, mild to unpleasant irritation occurs at 2-10ppm, and intolerable irritation (tissue damage possible) occurs at levels above 25ppm.

From the Reference Data sheet from Meridian Engineering (which references OSHA data) http://www.meridianeng.com/formalde.html

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA^7,8
Reported short-term effects of inhalation of formaldehyde gas include bronchitis, pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs), inflammation of the lungs and respiratory tract, pneumonia, and respiratory failure resulting in death. Lower concentrations (2 - 3 ppm) can cause tingling of the nose and back of the throat, but tolerance to higher concentrations can occur in some individuals. Most people can tolerate 4 - 5 ppm for up to 30 minutes, but after that time period discomfort increases. Breathing becomes difficult at 10 - 20 ppm. Serious injury is likely to occur with brief exposures to 50 - 100 ppm, which could cause edema (fluid build-up) in the lungs, inflammation of the lungs, and death. Pulmonary edema can develop several hours after exposure to these high concentrations. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has established a tentative IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health) value of 30 ppm. This means that exposure to that concentration for thirty minutes or more could result in permanent injury or death. ⁹

I haven't heard of any kids coming in with flash pulmonary edema after getting their hair washed with No More Tears shampoo.

I'm going to call Bull@!$%# on that 200ppm statistic...because it simply doesn't make sense. I would try to work out the yield from quaternium-15, but I don't know the starting amounts in a bottle of shampoo. I'm sure there is some chemistry type who will chime in soon enough. But please do read on, and keep in mind this product is used probably a billion + times, and there are no reports of formaldehyde-related injury to kids using this product.

Skin contact with formaldehyde solution can cause irritation, and drying and reddening of the skin. Long-term contact can cause sensitization of the skin, resulting in a rash or eczema. Subsequent exposure to low concentrations may cause a recurrence of the rash. Formaldehyde is not absorbed through the skin.

Eye irritation may occur at formaldehyde concentrations of about 0.2 ppm, and tears will form at about 4 - 5 ppm. Massive and intolerable tear formation occurs at concentrations higher than about 10 ppm in most people. Contact of the eyes with concentrated formaldehyde solutions can cause severe eye irritation and injury and possible blindness.

Yeah...I think if it contained that much formaldehyde, it probably wouldn't sell very well.

Ingestion (swallowing) of formaldehyde is unlikely, but if it occurred it would result in irritation and severe pain in the mouth, throat, and digestive tract. Later dizziness, coma, and lowered body temperatures can occur. The methyl alcohol contained in formaldehyde solution could also contribute to damage to the optic nerve and possible blindness.

Long-term exposure to elevated concentrations of formaldehyde gas may cause respiratory irritation, obstruction of the airways, and impaired lung function. Formaldehyde does not accumulate in the body, since it is readily metabolized to formic acid, and then to carbon dioxide and water.

Laboratory tests have shown that formaldehyde can cause nasal cancers in rats exposed to a concentration of 14.3 ppm of formaldehyde for 24 months. Mice exposed to the same concentration of formaldehyde did not develop a statistically significant increase in cancers. In humans, numerous epidemiological (causes of death) studies have been done on various groups of workers exposed to formaldehyde. These have included morticians, garment workers, wood workers, foundry workers, painters, and barbers, among others. To date, there do not appear to have been any statistically significant increases in cancers at any site in humans. Many of these studies have suffered from lack of exposure and smoking history data. Due to cancers found in animal studies, and the limited and controversial human epidemiological studies, both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) consider formaldehyde to be a possible human carcinogen, and regulate it accordingly.

So...would you like to modify your claim of 200ppm?

...is it possible you missed a decimal place or 3? Perhaps it was 0.200ppm? Maybe 0.02ppm? Or was it just a bull@!$%# made up statistic to begin with?

I can't fault you for Environmental Working Groups data. Let us know what you turn up, when you try to verify their numbers.

I'd buy the 200 ppm if it were the pure preservative chemical. But in the formulation, it's going to be less than 1%, probably closer to 0.1% of the formulation. So your 200 ppm quickly goes down to safe levels at 0.200 ppm when in the context of the formulation.

As to where I get my data:

A) I work in the industry, so I know how much of these preservatives are required to be effective in formulations such as these.

B) You must identify degradants above 0.1% when found in stability. So if it's not showing up in stability reports, it's less than 0.1%.

C) I know a lot of people in the company, some of whom work on this very product.

As to where the "activists" get their data? They read it off the back of the label and ASSUME many things that aren't true. You can't just read the ingredients off the back of the label and apply everything about the chemical to the formulation out-of-context. For instance, some preservatives for eyedrops are soaps (don't believe me? Shake up a bottle, and see if it foams). So are you going to avoid eyedrops because there's 0.1% soap in there to protect from microbiological contamination? No, you're not. You can't apply all aspects of soap to the finished eyedrop product because it's in such a minute concentration.

Again, do we trust the company's stability profile for the last 50 years, or some activists thoughts about an ingredient list?

It's funny when you see someone like ...."MarineDoc"... being led down the street on a leash.... knuckles dragging behind....

LOL

AC, the only person that's laughing at your attempts at humor is yourself. Let's focus on debating the topic at hand, and leave the personal attacks out. If you can't actually adhere to the rules of debate, maybe it's you, not us, that is dragging his/her knuckles. Attacking the messenger does not lend credibility to your asinine thinking.

Don't feed the trolls...

Good advice... maybe you two will go away... you two sure won't be able to make a living off of the votes you get....

Still LMAO at you two...!

I'm sure you're laughing at your own comments in your head. Do you really think comments about us "dragging our knuckles" are funny enough for you to LYAO? Strange.

Btw, J&J put out a statement today that says they've been reformulating these products for years to take these substances out, but that in the minute concentrations they are considered safe, effective, and non-toxic by the U.S. FDA, European health authorities, and every other oversight group out there. Not sure why you continue to post here, because you have nothing to say but personal attacks. But the fact is that these activists are mad about nothing, because action's been taking place for years on this topic.

AC, remember Abraham Lincoln's quote: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Sorry... try again... you missed the mark yet again... what else did Lincoln say....?

What about Jefferson, and maybe give us a few quotes from Washington, and Adams also... What do they feel about J&J and what they put in their shampoo...

Oh and by the way... I'm laughing .... some more... comment about that also... "AGAIN"...!

LOL

"Did you notice the part where it says "likely" carcinogen? This means that it may or may not be one, that they have no proof!"

Wrong. You're out of date - formaldehyde, a byproduct of the Quaternium-15 in there BECAUSE acts as a formaldehyde releaser, HAS been classified a "known" carcenogen to humans by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the US Dept of Health this year. I would hope we all apprreciate formative/baby humans are amongst the most vulnerable of we humans. At best Quaternium-15(formaldehyde outgassing) is a known allergen to even tough skinned adults.

If you want to dig through "proof" or challenge scientific method go chase down those studies and conclusions.......OR we could just demand J&J takes out those compounds just like they did for other markets outside of the US.

It's the gradual build up.... Let your kids make a choice when they are older.

My kids aren't going to be brainwashed by media. :)

GreenDream,

I guess your answer is to shave them until they are old enough to pick their shampoo?

First, it wasn't an MSN story. Second, you have no way of knowing what the accumulative effect on babies and children might be. Third, J&J already has the product without these items, so shame on J&J for continuing this risky business.

Because they make cancer meds

No. Because you can't just remove something from a product and expect it to be the same product. Take something like food, since it's an easy example. Most foods include salt. Pick your favorite food that has salt in it and remove all of the salt since it's not good for you in large amounts. Will it still taste good? In most cases, no. In order for it to sell after removing the salt, the recipe needs to be reformulated in order to improve the taste so people will buy it. With something like shampoo, these chemicals are in there for specific reasons. Remove the chemicals and you might increase irritation on babies or you might cause really dry skin or whatever other problems that these chemicals are in there for. Before removing them, another method needs to be developed to produce the same effect without the chemicals and that takes time.

As for the products they make that are already without those chemicals, they are far more expensive and people in the US don't want expensive regardless of the reason. That's why organic products aren't very popular with most of the people in the country... they cost more. People will choose a product that is potentially ***yes, potentially*** harmful rather than pay more. Trying to sell higher priced products without the chemicals isn't going to work well in the US. So J&J is going to have to find a cheap way of producing the same product without the chemicals before completely phasing out the current formula. That is simply how it works. Now, if there were actual evidence instead of imagination and conjecture that showed that J&J baby shampoo caused cancer, then it would be pulled immediately. But because there is no real evidence, they aren't going to pull it until another viable option is available. The fact that they are even doing this much shows that they are a decent enough company. Most companies won't bother until (if) there is real evidence. Rather than waiting on real evidence, J&J is already working on removing the chemicals ... JUST IN CASE. It sounds to me like you guys are all complaining about a company that is going above and beyond what most companies do. In other words, you're wasting time fighting a company that is better than most instead of going after those who are truly bad (shown by actual evidence). Waste your time here if you want, but that's all it is... wasted time.

Riamus, stop with all the logic, it hurts them to think.

Yeah, I know. No one wants to think for themselves today and they'll accept what the media or special interest groups tell them without wondering if it's really true. :)

Riamus and JustaGrunt.......Well said!!!!!!!!!!

"No. Because you can't just remove something from a product and expect it to be the same product."

Yet those compounds are not in versions sold in countries that wont allow it.

Some of you are so busy slapping yourselves on the backs for your half baked logic that you've missed details already spelled out in the article. That J&J already has formulations they sell, presumably at a fine profit, why not here? WHY? It's a damned reasonable question/challenge for them. They even said they're changing over - 2+ years seems like more than enough time to convert process/formulation here too. Why apologize for them? Would you do the same if it was some cheap Chinese product with known carcinogens it it?

J&J is cutthroat and lobbies hard for less regulation and oversight both in therms of product safety and in terms of FTC matters. Just this year they were busted, admitted, and were fined for "its subsidiaries, employees and agents paid bribes to publicly-employed health care providers in Greece, Poland and Romania, and that kickbacks were paid on behalf of Johnson & Johnson subsidiary companies to the former government of Iraq under the United Nations Oil for Food program”. If you think they're looking out for the product long term safety of our kids and not just chasing another buck then you're selectively naive.

Riamus,

You left out that the "reformulated" product without the chemicals cost twice as much. That in countries where J & J sells products that don't contain the TRACE AMOUNTS of these chemicals is because GOVERNMENT has BANNED their use. Thus they aren't selling J & J Baby Shampoo in those countries, it is a different product. So this Activist group is comparing "Apples" and "Oranges", but hopes "WE" are too ignorant/stupid to notice that fact. They attack J & J because they are a large, profitable, and thus "EVIL" corporation.

The really funny thing is almost anything can be a "Carcinogen" in the proper "dosage". I love getting these"Activists" to sign petitions to BAN the use of Di-hydrogen Monoxide, ( H2O). They never GET IT.

@Riamus:

Stop posting facts and common sense! You are making it hard for the trolls and mouth-breathers to get their way.

"Thus they aren't selling J & J Baby Shampoo in those countries, it is a different product."

Wrong - in England, one of the counties that get the reformulated product, it's still called "No More Tears Shampoo" and costs a mere English pound a bottle (US $1.59 for the same 300ml bottle). You could just check Amazon UK for yourself.....or J&J's UK website for the product effectiveness & safety claims.

So, in fact it's NO MORE expensive and the safer version is marketed with the same positive product feature claims as the US product that contain quaternium-15 & dioxane! Enough with the misinformation and bad presumptions about these chemicals being necessary to the task or that they would be expensive to substitute for with safer alternatives. The evidence proves out J&J is simply being unresponsive in places where they rule over consumer interests.

What is really going on here is YET ANOTHER, aren't you tired of it yet, example of Food and Thug doing their job; being paid to look the other way. It is irrelevant that it costs more to produce a shampoo that does not have known carcinogens in it.

Let's do something similar: Let's start a company that makes a drink that causes, is a known cause of, blindness in 1 out of every 1000 people after two years of moderate intake. Should the FDA not allow the company to make the product? Should the FDA stop the company from producing the drink? Should the FDA demand more studies of the drink?

Well, here we have a problem. We know that the FDA is bought and paid for by businesses; it's called lobbying.

We also know that the FDA isn't competent to take-out the trash, let alone be a responsible monitoring agency searching-out the truth about things in our daily lives that may kill us immediately or take years to kill us, or worse, kill or permanently maim our unborn children through their grand-mothers; oops, already happened.

So, why does the FDA exist? To give the American people the illusion that there are people looking-out for us and our welfare. That, is a lie, a V E R Y B I G L I E! !

Let's look at an American business; FORD. Ford made the Pinto. KNOWN FACT, the Pinto burst into flames when it was hit in the rear; KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED FACT! What did FORD do?

Well, everyone in their right mind knows that they pulled them off the roads and fixed them, recalled them, right?

Well, NO, THEY DID NOT. FORD figured that they had a choice. They HAD A CHOICE ABOUT KILLING YOU, YOUR WIFE, YOUR KIDS, ALL OF YOU AT ONCE, OR FIXING THEIR DEATH-TRAP CAR!

They, FORD, could: 1. recall these KNOWN DEATH TRAPS THAT COOKED PEOPLE ALIVE IN THE CAR, however, that would cost money. Or. and I find this interesting, 2. they, FORD, could get their Actuaries to tell them how many people were likely to be COOKED-ALIVE in these FORD CARS, and their LAWYERS to tell them, FORD, how much money it was going to cost them to pay-off the survivors of the people who were COOKED-ALIVE in the fires that would be caused by their DEFECTIVE FORD CAR DESIGN.

Let's make this short: FORD, went with number 2, number TWO! FORD and the American agencies responsible for Americans safety, agreed that COOKING INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN FORD CARS WAS ACCEPTABLE!

Do you think that the actions taken/NOT TAKEN by FORD would have been the same if the cars THAT COOKED ALIVE THE OCCUPANTS, were Lincolns!

Me either.

Please, do not try to prove your ignorance or your allegiance to American business or FORD, or J&J by trying to make this example different. Get used to it: the agencies put in place to protect you and me, are not and do not, do that job, for us; it took how long to get the wipes that were killing people recalled? It took BAD PRESS to get the PINTO OFF THE ROAD. It took how long to get warning labels on cigarettes AFTER it was a known fact that they KILL people? ARE YOU KIDDING! Asbestos, mining, MAD COW! Want more, look it up.

PS. This is not a Dem or Rep thing, it is ALL OF THEM!

That would cause loss of profit and that is much more important than cancer in kids. As for people saying that the sefe stuff is more expensive..what are your kids worth? Maybe you could cut back on some little luxury..Or make your own products? It's simple and fun and loving.