Johnson & Johnson which makes a ton of personal care products made an announcement this week that they will be removing many chemicals from their products. These chemicals are not listed on products. Consumers were not aware they were in the products until the Environmental Working Group did a study in 2009.
EWG applauds the move. They say it is unprecedented in this industry for a company to make such a change to their product line.
Some of the ingredients on the list are formaldehyde, 1,4 dioxane, pththalates, triclosan, fragrance ingredients, etc. Many of these chemicals were removed from baby products in November 2011. Now their entire product line with be revamped.
http://healthland.ti...-from-products/
I tried to find a complete list of the ingredients, but had no luck. Johnson & Johnson offers this new website to explain their stance:
http://www.safetyand...commitment.com/
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
8
Johnson & Johnson will remove some chemicals from its products
Started by FamilyTreeClimber, Aug 17 2012 01:08 PM
32 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 17 August 2012 - 01:15 PM
It's good news, sort of. They shouldn't have any toxic chemicals in their products, but I guess that's wishful thinking.
(What kills me is their tag line/logo-"a family company." Like they're to be trusted because it's a "family"?? )
They are able to hide their toxins under the word "fragrance" and it's legal. That's why reading labels is so crucial.
If it doesn't list everything, or has that title on the back, don't buy it.
Thanks for the post.
(What kills me is their tag line/logo-"a family company." Like they're to be trusted because it's a "family"?? )
They are able to hide their toxins under the word "fragrance" and it's legal. That's why reading labels is so crucial.
If it doesn't list everything, or has that title on the back, don't buy it.
Thanks for the post.
#3
Posted 17 August 2012 - 01:25 PM
It is wishful thinking to think all chemicals will be removed. The way I look at it is it's a move in the right direction. The fact that they recognize there is a problem with these ingredients is a start. It also tells me that consumers must be becoming more aware of what's in the stuff they use and are deciding that they don't want to buy these products. Maybe this move will cause the competition to make similar changes.
I'm elated that they will remove chemically derived fragrances. I see no purpose for it. Most of those fragrances smell terrible. My Mom bought the wrong soap the other day. She literally had to put it in a zipper bag because the fragrance was so overpowering. Who wants to smell like that?
It really is crazy how the government regulates what goes on labels and what doesn't. It is sort of like when you see things like "fillers, color, fragrance, preservatives" on a label. It could be almost anything.
There are other implications of the non-reporting of ingredients on labels. My niece has Celiacs disease. She can't use any product that has wheat in it. This means shampoos, soaps, etc. But, companies do not have to always declare these ingredients. She has to research everything she uses (even if it's not ingested) for ingredients and for cross contamination. Sometimes the only way she can do that is to call the company.
I'm elated that they will remove chemically derived fragrances. I see no purpose for it. Most of those fragrances smell terrible. My Mom bought the wrong soap the other day. She literally had to put it in a zipper bag because the fragrance was so overpowering. Who wants to smell like that?
It really is crazy how the government regulates what goes on labels and what doesn't. It is sort of like when you see things like "fillers, color, fragrance, preservatives" on a label. It could be almost anything.
There are other implications of the non-reporting of ingredients on labels. My niece has Celiacs disease. She can't use any product that has wheat in it. This means shampoos, soaps, etc. But, companies do not have to always declare these ingredients. She has to research everything she uses (even if it's not ingested) for ingredients and for cross contamination. Sometimes the only way she can do that is to call the company.
#5
Posted 17 August 2012 - 02:45 PM
That's great they are removing some of the chemicals that should not have been there already. I didn't know some of these things were in it or what some of these were. The sad part is "a family company" was because they have always been the main manufacture of baby products. Makes you wonder what is really in the baby products now! I don't have any as my kids are a little bit older, but I do wonder how safe their baby products really were now.
#6
Posted 17 August 2012 - 05:55 PM
dConklin, I think we'd all be surprised what additives are in the products we eat. I was once told that formaldehyde is used in frozen french fries to keep the potatoes from turning color. It's not a very pleasant though.
The thing I always wonder is do they really research what the effect of these chemicals is with contact over a lifetime? Sure, if you use a product once, you probably aren't going to experience any problems. But, what if you use it every day or every week for 30 years?
I am really surprised that more companies aren't dumping fragrances in products. So many people have allergies and asthma these days. You would think there would be more of an effort to make things scent free.
The thing I always wonder is do they really research what the effect of these chemicals is with contact over a lifetime? Sure, if you use a product once, you probably aren't going to experience any problems. But, what if you use it every day or every week for 30 years?
I am really surprised that more companies aren't dumping fragrances in products. So many people have allergies and asthma these days. You would think there would be more of an effort to make things scent free.
#7
Posted 18 August 2012 - 03:43 AM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 17 August 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:
dConklin, I think we'd all be surprised what additives are in the products we eat. I was once told that formaldehyde is used in frozen french fries to keep the potatoes from turning color. It's not a very pleasant though.
The thing I always wonder is do they really research what the effect of these chemicals is with contact over a lifetime? Sure, if you use a product once, you probably aren't going to experience any problems. But, what if you use it every day or every week for 30 years?
I am really surprised that more companies aren't dumping fragrances in products. So many people have allergies and
asthma these days. You would think there would be more of an effort to make things scent free.
The thing I always wonder is do they really research what the effect of these chemicals is with contact over a lifetime? Sure, if you use a product once, you probably aren't going to experience any problems. But, what if you use it every day or every week for 30 years?
I am really surprised that more companies aren't dumping fragrances in products. So many people have allergies and
asthma these days. You would think there would be more of an effort to make things scent free.
It's the word "fragrance."
They can legally hide a multitude of ingredients under that term.
"Although companies are required by law to list all chemicals ingredients in a product,
a special loophole
allows them to hide what’s in the “fragrance” component.
And what’s hidden in that simple word can include complex mixtures of up to hundreds of chemicals that studies show may
be linked to a variety of health problems, including allergies, skin reactions, endocrine/hormone disruption, and possibly
even birth defects.
Companies are not required to test cosmetics for safety before they are sold."
http://natureswizard...rsonal-care/16/
"Fragrance secrecy is legal due to a giant loophole in the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1973, which requires companies to list cosmetics ingredients on the product labels but explicitly exempts fragrance.
By taking advantage of this loophole, the cosmetics industry has kept the public in the dark about the ingredients
in fragrance, even those that present potential health risks or build up in people’s bodies.
In fact, “fragrances” are typically mixtures of many different secret chemicals.
To make matters worse, FDA lacks the authority to require manufacturers to test cosmetics for safety,
including fragranced products, before they are sold to consumers.
Shoppers have no way of knowing exactly which of the 3,100 fragrance ingredients may be hiding in their beauty products
or even in their child’s baby shampoo."
http://www.ewg.org/notsosexy
#8
Posted 18 August 2012 - 12:01 PM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 17 August 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:
They are able to hide their toxins under the word "fragrance" and it's legal. That's why reading labels is so crucial.
If it doesn't list everything, or has that title on the back, don't buy it.
I didn't realise that - I'll definitely be looking out for the 'f' word in future!
In Johnson & Johnson's favour, I have to say that I find their baby powder is the only one I can use. Even other baby powders bring a reaction, because I have Lupus and I have to be very careful what I use and what I eat, as all sorts of chemicals can trigger a skin reaction. I know little old me is hardly a ringing endorsement, but praise where it's due.
#9
Posted 18 August 2012 - 12:16 PM
It is a step in the right direction but it is scary to think that what they are removing is the stuff that nobody knew was in there all these years. Johnson and Johnson is a major company in manufacturing baby and infant products. They shouldn't have been using those chemicals in the first place.
#10
Posted 18 August 2012 - 01:18 PM
Were these chemicals in their baby products too? Wow! I agree with dissn_it. Those chemicals shouldn't have been there period. I suppose it's a good thing that they are removing the offending chemicals, but how can they be trusted if they never did list them in the first place?
#12
Posted 18 August 2012 - 06:36 PM
Hardison, yes, the ingredients were in the baby products. But, after the research done by the Environmental Working Group, they removed these ingredients last November. From what I read, it's a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach. No one does research on these ingredients, so therefore, there is no known harm.
It's much the same for everything that is manufactured. There are things like "dough extenders" in bread that are a combination of many things. These are clever ways like using the catch all phrase fragrance to group ingredients together so they need not be put on a label.
And, shortpoet is right. The lobbyists wield tremendous power. It is their efforts that make these things happen. Remember the fight two years ago when the White House wanted to remove ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches. The lobby that supports tomato ketchup manufacturers was up in arms. They mounted a campaign and hit Congress hard. The result? The White House recommendation is removed and ketchup can be viewed as a serving of vegetables in the school lunch program. Who cares about the health of the children who get ketchup rather than fresh tomato or broccoli. It serves no one but the industry that makes the product.
It's much the same for everything that is manufactured. There are things like "dough extenders" in bread that are a combination of many things. These are clever ways like using the catch all phrase fragrance to group ingredients together so they need not be put on a label.
And, shortpoet is right. The lobbyists wield tremendous power. It is their efforts that make these things happen. Remember the fight two years ago when the White House wanted to remove ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches. The lobby that supports tomato ketchup manufacturers was up in arms. They mounted a campaign and hit Congress hard. The result? The White House recommendation is removed and ketchup can be viewed as a serving of vegetables in the school lunch program. Who cares about the health of the children who get ketchup rather than fresh tomato or broccoli. It serves no one but the industry that makes the product.
#13
Posted 19 August 2012 - 03:30 AM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 18 August 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:
Hardison, yes, the ingredients were in the baby products. But, after the research done by the Environmental Working Group, they removed these ingredients last November. From what I read, it's a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach. No one does research on these ingredients, so therefore, there is no known harm.
It's much the same for everything that is manufactured. There are things like "dough extenders" in bread that are a combination of many things. These are clever ways like using the catch all phrase fragrance to group ingredients together so they need not be put on a label.
And, shortpoet is right. The lobbyists wield tremendous power. It is their efforts that make these things happen. Remember the fight two years ago when the White House wanted to remove ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches. The lobby that supports tomato ketchup manufacturers was up in arms. They mounted a campaign and hit Congress hard. The result? The White House recommendation is removed and ketchup can be viewed as a serving of vegetables in the school lunch program. Who cares about the health of the children who get ketchup rather than fresh tomato or broccoli. It serves no one but the industry that makes the product.
It's much the same for everything that is manufactured. There are things like "dough extenders" in bread that are a combination of many things. These are clever ways like using the catch all phrase fragrance to group ingredients together so they need not be put on a label.
And, shortpoet is right. The lobbyists wield tremendous power. It is their efforts that make these things happen. Remember the fight two years ago when the White House wanted to remove ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches. The lobby that supports tomato ketchup manufacturers was up in arms. They mounted a campaign and hit Congress hard. The result? The White House recommendation is removed and ketchup can be viewed as a serving of vegetables in the school lunch program. Who cares about the health of the children who get ketchup rather than fresh tomato or broccoli. It serves no one but the industry that makes the product.
http://www.huffingto..._b_1101433.html
#14
Posted 19 August 2012 - 06:05 PM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 18 August 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:
Hardison, yes, the ingredients were in the baby products. But, after the research done by the Environmental Working Group, they removed these ingredients last November. From what I read, it's a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach. No one does research on these ingredients, so therefore, there is no known harm.
It's much the same for everything that is manufactured. There are things like "dough extenders" in bread that are a combination of many things. These are clever ways like using the catch all phrase fragrance to group ingredients together so they need not be put on a label.
And, shortpoet is right. The lobbyists wield tremendous power. It is their efforts that make these things happen. Remember the fight two years ago when the White House wanted to remove ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches. The lobby that supports tomato ketchup manufacturers was up in arms. They mounted a campaign and hit Congress hard. The result? The White House recommendation is removed and ketchup can be viewed as a serving of vegetables in the school lunch program. Who cares about the health of the children who get ketchup rather than fresh tomato or broccoli. It serves no one but the industry that makes the product.
It's much the same for everything that is manufactured. There are things like "dough extenders" in bread that are a combination of many things. These are clever ways like using the catch all phrase fragrance to group ingredients together so they need not be put on a label.
And, shortpoet is right. The lobbyists wield tremendous power. It is their efforts that make these things happen. Remember the fight two years ago when the White House wanted to remove ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches. The lobby that supports tomato ketchup manufacturers was up in arms. They mounted a campaign and hit Congress hard. The result? The White House recommendation is removed and ketchup can be viewed as a serving of vegetables in the school lunch program. Who cares about the health of the children who get ketchup rather than fresh tomato or broccoli. It serves no one but the industry that makes the product.
It is scary that they use this in the baby products. All doctors and everybody seem to push Johnson and Johnson for baby products to new parents.
What exactly is dough extender?? I have never seen that one before but I am afraid to ask what all is in it!
Some schools are a bit out of hand with school lunches. I let the girls get school lunch, it is easier then figuring out what is allowed and what is not. It depended on what allergies were in that classroom on if you were allowed to bring certain things to school for lunch. Snacks had to be completely healthy and they couldn't have goodies that my kids occasionally like to eat. They eat quite healthy on average (they eat almost everything I cook and we don't eat out more then 4 times a year.) So an occasional snack is ok with me, but you have to see what the school allows first. They make it difficult to send a lunch in!!
#15
Posted 19 August 2012 - 06:07 PM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 19 August 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:
And let's not forget that congress (the opposite of progress) called pizza a vegetable too.
http://www.huffingto..._b_1101433.html
http://www.huffingto..._b_1101433.html
Well pizza the way I make it could count as having veggies, but most of the time school pizza is that nasty Ellios frozen pizza that is just not at all considered in the same class as a vegetable. I can't even stomach that stuff and I like pizza!
#16
Posted 19 August 2012 - 08:00 PM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 18 August 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:
Hardison, yes, the ingredients were in the baby products. But, after the research done by the Environmental Working Group, they removed these ingredients last November. From what I read, it's a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach. No one does research on these ingredients, so therefore, there is no known harm.
It's much the same for everything that is manufactured. There are things like "dough extenders" in bread that are a combination of many things. These are clever ways like using the catch all phrase fragrance to group ingredients together so they need not be put on a label.
And, shortpoet is right. The lobbyists wield tremendous power. It is their efforts that make these things happen. Remember the fight two years ago when the White House wanted to remove ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches. The lobby that supports tomato ketchup manufacturers was up in arms. They mounted a campaign and hit Congress hard. The result? The White House recommendation is removed and ketchup can be viewed as a serving of vegetables in the school lunch program. Who cares about the health of the children who get ketchup rather than fresh tomato or broccoli. It serves no one but the industry that makes the product.
It's much the same for everything that is manufactured. There are things like "dough extenders" in bread that are a combination of many things. These are clever ways like using the catch all phrase fragrance to group ingredients together so they need not be put on a label.
And, shortpoet is right. The lobbyists wield tremendous power. It is their efforts that make these things happen. Remember the fight two years ago when the White House wanted to remove ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches. The lobby that supports tomato ketchup manufacturers was up in arms. They mounted a campaign and hit Congress hard. The result? The White House recommendation is removed and ketchup can be viewed as a serving of vegetables in the school lunch program. Who cares about the health of the children who get ketchup rather than fresh tomato or broccoli. It serves no one but the industry that makes the product.
This type of thing really gets under my skin. It really does. There's got to be away to take power back from the lobbyist or limit their power in some way. I know it's related to money in politics. It drives me crazy.
#17
Posted 20 August 2012 - 03:12 AM
Johnson/johnson make political contributions to both sides via their pac-but from this link, it looks like more goes
to the republican side of the equation.
http://www.opensecre...&cmte=C00010983
They've also contributed to boehner and cantor.
*Open Secrets is a good site to bookmark.
to the republican side of the equation.
http://www.opensecre...&cmte=C00010983
They've also contributed to boehner and cantor.
*Open Secrets is a good site to bookmark.
#18
Posted 20 August 2012 - 10:37 AM
Shortpoet, that was what I was thinking about--the pizza. I got confused. I believe ketchup was labeled a vegetable during the Reagan years. The "pizza is a vegetable" craze came in 2011. It was a huge battle and showed how much power lobbyists have over Congress. Everybody with a brain knows pizza is not a vegetable!
That reminds me of that show with the chef (Jamie Oliver?) where he had young children try to identify different produce. It was shocking to me to see that a 5 or 6 year old couldn't identify a carrot, potato, or tomato. But, then again, when we have Congress telling us pizza is a vegetable, who can blame them?
DConklin, I tried to find an explanation online but could only find ingredients listed as "dough extender". My Dad use to work at a bakery manufacturing plant for a major grocery chain. He told me about this. I found in the book "Goldbeck's Guid to Good Food" that it is the similar to "dough conditioners". These are additives that allow them to use less yeast and to have shorter rise times. It says that in the early days of commercial bread making, they used natural ingredients like barley malt as these conditioners/extenders. But, as time went on they started using bisufites and calcium peroxide as well as other ingredients called "oxidizing agents". I do not know if these are harmful to people, but it seems to me the farther you get away from the natural process, the less health the product will be.
That reminds me of that show with the chef (Jamie Oliver?) where he had young children try to identify different produce. It was shocking to me to see that a 5 or 6 year old couldn't identify a carrot, potato, or tomato. But, then again, when we have Congress telling us pizza is a vegetable, who can blame them?
DConklin, I tried to find an explanation online but could only find ingredients listed as "dough extender". My Dad use to work at a bakery manufacturing plant for a major grocery chain. He told me about this. I found in the book "Goldbeck's Guid to Good Food" that it is the similar to "dough conditioners". These are additives that allow them to use less yeast and to have shorter rise times. It says that in the early days of commercial bread making, they used natural ingredients like barley malt as these conditioners/extenders. But, as time went on they started using bisufites and calcium peroxide as well as other ingredients called "oxidizing agents". I do not know if these are harmful to people, but it seems to me the farther you get away from the natural process, the less health the product will be.
#19
Posted 20 August 2012 - 12:14 PM
It's pretty scary that the famous company that makes baby products which are supposed to be gentle and pure had a bunch of hidden chemicals in their products. That whole "the family company" image was smart marketing, they had me fooled for years into thinking I was buying healthy, gentle child-friendly products.
I actually think revealing that they're discontinuing the chemicals will hurt their image because that's like telling your wife of 20 years, "I'm breaking up with the girlfriend that you never knew I had all these years." Sure they're correcting something, but it's something they shouldn't have been doing in the first place.
I actually think revealing that they're discontinuing the chemicals will hurt their image because that's like telling your wife of 20 years, "I'm breaking up with the girlfriend that you never knew I had all these years." Sure they're correcting something, but it's something they shouldn't have been doing in the first place.
#20
Posted 20 August 2012 - 06:55 PM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 20 August 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:
DConklin, I tried to find an explanation online but could only find ingredients listed as "dough extender". My Dad use to work at a bakery manufacturing plant for a major grocery chain. He told me about this. I found in the book "Goldbeck's Guid to Good Food" that it is the similar to "dough conditioners". These are additives that allow them to use less yeast and to have shorter rise times. It says that in the early days of commercial bread making, they used natural ingredients like barley malt as these conditioners/extenders. But, as time went on they started using bisufites and calcium peroxide as well as other ingredients called "oxidizing agents". I do not know if these are harmful to people, but it seems to me the farther you get away from the natural process, the less health the product will be.
Holy cow, I had no idea until you said it. Bread is one thing I don't read all the ingredients to and never would have thought they would use chemicals so they could use less yeast
I quite often make homemade bread, but in the summer it is just too hot.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users