I use the Johnson and Johnson baby shampoo. Not because of a sensitive scalp or eyes, but because I've been too lethargic to go buy something else.

I'm not shocked at all. I'm almost indifferent. Seems like just about everything we use is going to kill us one way or another. It's just a matter of finding something that will do it as slowly and painlessly as possible.

IIRC, toothpaste contains a trace amount of formaldehyde. I did read that in a science book many years ago, so it might have changed.

I find it of note that some of the products with the chemicals in them are named to give the impression that they are natural products.

Now you can preserve your babies forever.r

@bohemian: Formaldehyde is a natural chemical though.

You know what will happen though. They'll reformulate these shampoos and stuff to take the formaldehyde out and everyone will complain that they aren't as good as they used to be. Or the replacement will be more toxic.

Mmm, new coke.

Isn't this brand discrimination? If they are going to test for carcinogens, why are they only testing one brand? Reason would propose that similar chemicals and processes are used to make similar products.

This "campaign" sounds like a front for the organic/all-natural company's PR departments.

@sir_eccles: Tuna hasn't tasted the same since they took out the dolphins.

What? No lead????

@Rugbyjersey: You obviously overlooked the list because there are several brands listed with various products that have been tested.

I always assumed Baby Shampoo was made from pureed bits of infants, so this study is oddly reassuring.

@Trai_Dep:
Girl Scout: I only like all-natural foods and beverages, organically grown, with no preservatives. Are you sure they're real lemons?
Pugsley: Yes.
Girl Scout: Well, I'll tell you what. I'll buy a cup if you buy a box of my delicious Girl Scout cookies. Do we have a deal?
Wednesday: Are they made from real Girl Scouts?

[www.imdb.com]

the credibility of this article is a little suspect when they say the fda say the formaldehyde might even toughen up American babies to survive any financial downturn.

Interesting.
It catches my attention that this post is in regard to formaldehyde being used in baby products.
Are you also aware that this same ingredient is used in MANY of the vaccines?
I find that to be even more disturbing, seeing as it is directly injected into babies' bodies.

For the record, 1,4 Dioxane exposure is recommended to be kept less than 20 ppm as per the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health:

[www.cdc.gov]

Ditto for Formaldehyde:

[www.cdc.gov]

Looks like some of these violate OSHA standards.

@Coles_Law. Oops-the Formaldehyde limit is for airborne exposure. Dioxane appears correct though.

The big concern with this should be ... WHERE were these products made at?!!! Just because it is an american based company does NOT mean the product was made here. Many companies are allowed to just label thier product as "Distributed by Such an Such Company", and are not required to put WHAT country it was produced in. This policy should be OUTLAWED!!! I've sent emails to acouple of the folks here but have gotten no reply. I doubt if this post will ever make it to the board either. So very sad!!!

If it's good enough for a pig fetus or a dead guy, it's good enough for a baby!

@Sharon Bruen: You are correct, formaldehyde is present in the production of vaccines but not in the final product. It's used to inactivate live viruses and is used in cosmetic production to ensure sterile product is released to the market. Luckily for you, me and anybody who uses cosmetics or got vaccinated, formaldehyde breaks down very quickly in aqueous solutions. Aqueous solution like vaccines and cosmetics. So, trace amounts will remain, but unless you squirt a few dozen shampoo bottles over your head every morning, you'll probably get more formaldehyde in you from walking by a hospital or any industrial building than in your morning shower.

@Sharon Bruen: Are you aware that formaldehyde occurs naturally int he body and is essential for life?

[www.chop.edu]

This just in: air contains carcinogens.

This also just in: You will die some day.

Did they stop putting formaldehyde in adult shampoos? It used to be a listed ingredient in lots of them.

@sir_eccles: "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."

With the shots, they are adding 20% more formaldehyde... That still seems like a lot.

How can this study be credible if a whole lot of products were not tested for formaldehyde?

All things considered - if you live in a city, I would be far more concerned about industrial smoke, car emission, old heavy industry soil touching the water table and the like containing carcinogens than baby shampoo.

Any industry - agro, cosmetic or what have you - means exactly that: Industry. Cheap mass production of products for folks dmanding ever cheaper products.

Why then are we so surprise when the manufacturing process leaves industrial contaminants? Are we so blind to think that because media found a new source of news to its focus, the contamination is actually new?

I recently left a job at a chemical plant that manufactures many surfactants including shampoos. 37% formaldehyde, aka formalin is added to these intentionally as a preservative. Otherwise, microbes can and will grow and contaminate your shampoo . We were always told it broke down to insignificant levels by the time it was used. And it is not required to be on the label because it is below the regulatory threshold for labeling. Kathon 'tradename' is an alternate preservative requested by many customers. 1,4 dioxane is a byproduct of the chemical reaction that creates the majority of our shampoo bases, SLS, ALS, etc... It disturbs me to think of the massive amount of these products that enter our water system every day.

@sottywiz: What do you mean by credible? Do you not believe that they got the listed results on the large number of products they did test?

@failurate: No I don't think that's a lot.

We are supposed to be informed of such things.

Why Johnson & Johnson did not tell us the chemicals' presence in advance? Does she try to hide away this information? For the consumer products it is like this? How about pharmaceutical products from Johnson & Johnson?

It a big shame for such a big health-care "leading" corporation? I do not trust them any more!

We are supposed to be informed of such things.

Why Johnson & Johnson did not tell us the chemicals' presence in advance? Does she try to hide away this information? For the consumer products it is like this? How about pharmaceutical products from Johnson & Johnson?

It a big shame for such a big health-care "leading" corporation? I do not trust them any more!

Eugenics 101.

I find it so sad that some parent would say, "Seems like just about everything we use is going to kill us one way or another." We put our kids in car seats and strap them into high chairs so they don't fall, we take all precaution to protect our offspring from injury, so why poison them slowly? If you ask me, just assuming that huge money hungry corporations selling baby items is safe, is true ignorance.