Children's Bath Products Contain Contaminants

A modest risk?

CBP, you asked, "Why take a chance on even a "modesk risk"?

A modest risk? You call something that's 87,000 times as deadly as secondhand smoke a "modest risk" ?

Of course the FDA and the companies won't even admit that a "modest risk" exists... although they'll jump all over those wisps of smoke.

People need to restore some balance in their thinking about just what "risk" means in life. Our social mores and our fears and lifestyles are being driven by advertising campaigns and yellow journalism rather than by common sense.

Michael J. McFadden

Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Michael J. McFadden of PA @ Mar 22, 2009 01:37:18 AM

Children's Bath Products

These children are our future! Why take a chance on even a "modesk risk"? If some companies can make products without formaldahyde, then they all can.

Geri Gowers of SC @ Mar 19, 2009 12:47:57 PM

Children's Bath Products

This is so sad! The FDA should be doing more to protect our children. Fortunately there are options out there. I get my natural & environmentally-friendly products at http://www.d3plaza.com.

Rob Gibson of MD @ Mar 15, 2009 23:18:49 PM

read the whole story

Now that you have added to the false alarm, you have an obligation to also alert your readers to an updated story in today's Washington Post, headlined: "Review Finds Modest Risk from Children's Toiletries"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031303168.html

Ann Shannon of NJ @ Mar 14, 2009 11:00:08 AM

Smoky Shampoos...

According to this story in the Wash. Post, they found formaldehyde concentrations in baby shampoo of up to 610 parts per million(ppm). This was described as "tiny" or "low" amounts of the chemical.

But let's consider a rather small (400 cubic meters) and relatively poorly ventilated (6 air-changes/hour) restaurant, with 30 customers, ten of whom light up twice per hour. Would you be worried about taking a child there after all the frightening ads and news stories about things like formaldehyde in cigarette smoke? You'd probably whisk your baby out of there faster than a waiter could pick up a tip.

According to the Surgeon General's figures those ten smokers will emit a total of 17 mg of formaldehyde into the air per hour. That formaldehyde is diluted in 2400 cubic meters of air, giving a concentration of .007ppm.

That "deadly threat" you'd normally whisk your child away from is 87,000 times safer (at least in terms of formaldehyde) than the baby shampoos described as having "tiny" or "low" levels of formaldehyde. Of course smoke has other chemicals as well, but their "threat concentrations" according to the EPA are usually significantly less than formaldehyde.

Meanwhile the FDA now wants to vastly stretch its workload to include regulating tobacco. There's clearly a problem here. Either the threat of wisps of airborne smoke have been greatly exaggerated, or the 87,000 times more deadly baby shampoos should have wiped out virtually every child in America. In either case, adding tobacco regulation to the FDA's workload seems like rather a bad idea.

Reference: 1979/1986 SG Reports, 1999 Massachusetts Benchmark Study: .856 mcg/cigarette total formaldehyde emissions, sidestream and mainstream (multiplied by 20 cigarettes per hour to equal 17 mg emissions per hour) A similar full analysis for a "small smoky bar" can be seen near the bottom of:

http://www.antibrains.com/shs.html

As you'll see, the formaldehyde concentrations in smoky air are actually far greater in terms of EPA safety levels than those of many of the other "deadly chemicals" you've heard about in secondhand smoke (note the last column showing the numbers of cigarettes needed to reach those levels)... so this is most certainly NOT a case of "cherry picking."

Michael J. McFadden

Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Michael J. McFadden of PA @ Mar 13, 2009 19:11:00 PM

Children's Bath Products Contain Contaminants

Jonson and Johnson's baby shampoo? Wow, this is a real eye opener, for something marketed as "gentle". This will change my purchase behavior.

Perle of CT @ Mar 13, 2009 18:53:15 PM

Contanimants

Interesting bit of news. Organic can not be that difficult to locate. Wonder how the manufacturers are able to convince USDA not to demand full labeling when know dangerous indgidents directly or indirectly are part of the chemical makeup of consumer goods. Why can't the major brand companies market products that are 100% safe for consumers, especially for the young?

"Organic" is a byword for higher pricing, manufacturers should be looking into improving the bottom line and provide safe products for consumers. Seems like a win-win situation.

Norron Lee, Sr of MA @ Mar 12, 2009 20:22:08 PM

And what levels are we talking about?

What a lousy piece of reporting. What levels are being found in these products? What are the toxicity profiles of 1.4-dioxane and formaldehyde? Does the reporter even know the scope of 'contaminated' within this context?

I doubt it.

Rather than parroting what some [possibly well-intentioned] group hands you as a press release, do some real reporting that describes what this really means. It could be that the Campaign for Safe Cosmetic Use is backed by money that makes their allegations suspect.

Helena Rubenstein of KY @ Mar 12, 2009 19:10:34 PM