Johnson And Johnson’s “Big Bubblin’ Stars” Campaign Promotes Toxic Baby Products?
With much fanfare Johnson and Johnson has announced their “Big Bubblin’ Stars” Campaign to promote their baby bath products. And boy, are they all over the place!
The company is launching a “Big Bubblin’ Stars” contest on YouTube behind its recently launched bubble-bath product, offering a grand prize of $10,000 and a chance for the winner to become host of a channel launched in 2005. To enter the contest, moms upload three-minute videos of their kids.
They’ve recruited hundreds of Mommy bloggers through Mom Central and, included the Wal-Mart Eleven Moms to promote the campaign.
Problem is…just this month The Campaign For Safe Cosmetics released a report, “No More Toxic Tub”. Lab test conducted by EWG found both Johnsons’ Baby Shampoo and two of their Baby washes include formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane, both ingredients linked to cancer and skin allergies.
Problem is…just this week a major supermarket, in CHINA of all places, pulled J&J products from their shelves over concerns about carcinogens and parents in China are REALLY upset!
Problem is…should J&J be going ahead with this campaign? J&J issued a carefully crafted statement to the 69.4 percent of Chinese parents who said THEY WOULD NOT BUY Johnson & Johnson baby products and 65.6 percent said they believed the products contained toxic ingredients. Yes, Johnson’s Baby Shampoo meets FDA regulations, but, well…do I need to go there?
- » See also: Fleurville Bags: Eco-friendly, Family-friendly…and Sexy?!
- » Get Eco Child’s Play by RSS or sign up by email.
I think Johnson and Johnson should take a step back, cancel the campaign and reassess the situation and the findings of The Campaign For Safe Cosmetics prior to proceeding. The folks in marketing at Johnson and Johnson are Moms too and we all want what is safe for our babies.
Join the effort to make J&J see the light on Twitter. Use the hashtag, #toxicJ&J. I already have!
I have a better idea. How about taking a second look at the claims by the activists, like these folks did at teh following links, qualified professionals who concluded that Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, along with all the other products tested, are safe:
http://www.stats.org/stories/2009/baby_bath_cancer_mar13_09.html
http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Children_s_Health_200/Stop_The_Fear_Mongering_On_Children_s_Health.shtml
This “campaign” is bogus from top to bottom.
Eric,
Thanks so much for commenting! I’m glad someone from The Formaldehyde Council is following up on this issue.
As I mention in my post, my thought is…should Johnson and Johnson reassess whether this is a good time to do this campaign. Rather than go through the usual, “he said”/”she said” activity, it would be nice to have a review of the facts and some relevant information.
Gee, what if J&J (A company I admire) contacted the EWG and discussed the findings? I think we have come to a point in the green movement and an environment where constructive conversation can take the place of radicalism.
Let’s open the doors to working together!
This is a great post and I couldn’t agree more!
It is curious that the prior commenter relies on what amounts to an opinion column and a “news” article from a traditional conservative group as “qualified professionals” that have determined the products are safe.
Or perhaps he is relying on the cited references - such as the FDA that we all know has not taken an active role in regulating the safety of the cosmetic industry.
Or perhaps he is relying on the EU’s Cosmetic Directive, which requires warnings for products containing formaldehyde more than 500 ppm and bans 1,4 dioxane as an ingredient?
In any event, the report doesn’t purport to conclude that children are being decisively harmed as a result of these exposures. Instead, it merely points out that the kids bath products contain 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde. Whether exposures are occuring and at what level is subject to debate. But it is not subject to debate that 1,4-dioxane is a probable human carcinogen. Nor is it subject to debate that formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen and known allergen, causing skin reactions, among other reactions. When you consider all the other sources of exposure to formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, parents may want to choose bath products don’t contain these ingredients, or phthalates or parabens or some other problemmatic ingredients. So what is important is education and information, especially since 1,4 dioxane and formaldehyde are usually contaminants and aren’t listed as ingredients.
I think that Jennifer is right on by makign the point that it isn’t just about the ingredients being harmful in one product but the exposure of the known carcinogens and the use over time and contined exposure. It’s not as though a child takes a bath once a week and uses no lotions or other products. There is a larger picture to be looked at. Trust a non-profit agency with no hidden agendas but to disclose truths and let others decide for themselves or an opinion.
It’s very clear why we need to reevaluate what is in personal care products and support the Kid Safe Chemical Act. Companies like J&J that spend millions on marketing campaigns can make their products safer. What was okay 20 years ago might not fly now and we as consumers want to trust the companies and have transparency.
Instead of fighting and saying that it is okay and the the EWG’s report is bogus - can’t we learn from it? Should companies like J&J (they are one example) be improving verses defending. They’re defense with the FDA is pretty weak.
Jennifer — The links I provided pointed out specific problems with the Campaign’s claims, details that could only be ferreted out once somebody took a closer look at the report, rather than just regurgitate the executive summary.
As for questioning motives, why not question the motive of the Environmental Working Group, the real muscle behind the Campaign? After all, it was EWG who released the details of the Kid-Safe Chemical Act in the wake of the Campaign’s report in order to capitalize on the hysteria it created.
Again, the bottom line is that these products are safe, and the Campaign’s claims are bogus. To pass their charges on without looking at them critically is irresponsible.
EWG doesn’t need to “capitalize” on hysteria. It’s not like they’re selling “safe” baby products or anything. I would say that companies such as J&J have a much larger stake in the publication (or not) of these findings.
Plus, Eric writes a blog that is apparently pro-formaldehyde, though he is not so open to discussion, as he hasn’t published my comment I posted there, basically stating that there are many avenues for formaldehyde exposure, including furniture, glues and solvents, clothing and textiles, and body care products. Numerous independent studies have shown this, and have also shown that they have a stronger effect on children, whether it’s lung damage or other carcinogenic effects.
Im not sure I trust the FDA in their big “A-OK!” on this. They are obviously severely underfunded and understaffed. And actually (by their own admission) have little regulatory power when it comes to ANYthing with cosmetics.
“The FDA cannot require companies to test products for safety before they are sold, does not systematically review the safety of ingredients and does not set limits for common, harmful contaminants in products.”
http://blog.thenatureschild.com/2009/03/pickled-baby-formaldehyde-in-kiddie.html
As for the rest of us, we have no stake either in making sure these products are safe. Wait…yes we do! Our children’s health.
[...] you missed it, MaryAnne write at EcoChild’s Play a post about the flaws in the Johnson and Johnson Campaign and her plea for them to end the [...]
Cate–
There are no “findings.” As my Health News Digest article argues, the methodology was completely wrong, but more than that, formaldehyde in low quantities is very necessary in these products as a preservative.
Absent that, bacteria can grow and have been known to cause blindness in extreme cases.
EWG are anti-chemical lunatics, and are frightfully ignorant of the science. And please–OF COURSE they have to capitalize on hysteria. That’s how they raise money!
J&J and all the big companies do not tend to comment on these matters. I think that is a mistake, but they listen to their craven attornyes, as they keep getting beat up.
Formaldehyde is what makes the product safe!
http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Children_s_Health_200/Stop_The_Fear_Mongering_On_Children_s_Health.shtml
Maryanne–
EWG knows that J&J won’t meet with them. Personally, I think they should, and that these groups should be “outed” as the fear entreprenuers they are.
But the bigs do not fight back, except via their trade associations. In the meantime, millions of people who are scared send in their contributions to these charlatans and the beat goes on.