Rough Transcript:<\/strong><\/p>\nSonali Kolhatkar: First explain how contaminants get into the products, since they are not intentionally put there.<\/p>\n
Stacy Malken: Right, but rather they are toxic by-products of chemical manufacturing, as you said. And one four dioxin is created by chemical processing, a rather nasty chemical process called OXOSALATION that a lot of companies use to add certain qualities to the products. Formaldehyde is actually released from the preservatives in the products. But what we know is that companies already know how to make products without those types of chemicals that are contaminated, so there is really no need at all for these chemicals to be in products. <\/p>\n
SK: So is it the chemical processing of the product, the actual product, say baby shampoo, or is it the packaging, because of course we know that plastic packaging can leech certain toxins into the product.<\/p>\n
SM: Right. Well, in this case, the formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, it\u2019s from the chemical manufacturing. But, we did also, as we looked at these children\u2019s products, we were really surprised to find that some of the bubble bath products are actually in PCB vinyl containers which are notorious for leeching toxic chemicals and is the most toxic type of plastic. So that\u2019s just a very interesting thing that we see that adult products don\u2019t usually use this plastic. The only place where we find them is in the children\u2019s products. For example, Dora the Explorer, Bubble Bath, Hot Wheels, Sesame Street Bubble Bath. . . Those sorts of products that come in cute cartoon characteristic containers that are made from PVC. And I think that shows and our report shows that companies are putting a lot of effort into marketing products and making them attractive to children, but they are not putting as much thought and focus into how to make these products as safe as they can possibly be for children. <\/p>\n
SK: So now that\u2019s a separate issue then. The PVC packaging is a separate issue from formaldehyde and the 1,4-dioxane. <\/p>\n
SM: Right, so basically our findings are just the tip of the iceberg. I mean we found two known carcinogens in these products that are not listed on labels, but there are many other chemicals of concern in many of these products too. <\/p>\n
SK: So give us some of the statistics. How many products did you test in total and which are the most problematic? <\/p>\n
SM: We tested forty eight products for one four dioxin and found that 67% of those contained one four dioxin. That is a probable human carcinogen. The consumer product safety commission says that it should be avoided at any level. And the worst product that we found on 1,4-dioxane was American girl Shar products. On the formaldehyde, we looked at twenty eight products and found that 82% of those contained formaldehyde. The worst offender in that category was Baby Magic Baby Lotion. Another concerning thing is that many of the products contained both chemicals, including Johnson Baby Shampoo, Sesame Street Bubble Bath, Grins and Giggles, Huggies Naturally Refreshing Green Tea Baby Wash. And of course we\u2019ve all seen these products and we know that they are marketed as pure, gentle\u2026 In the case of Johnson\u2019s Baby Shampoo, the number one choice of hospitals. And so these companies can do a lot better. And they really need to do better.<\/p>\n
SK: So Stacy, when there is a child in a bath, soaking in water with these chemicals, or when you put this contaminated lotion on a baby\u2019s skin. . . Skin is pores, these get into your bloodstream. <\/p>\n
SM: It\u2019s true, what we put on our bodies, gets into our bodies. And especially if you\u2019re sitting on a bubble bath with warm water for an extended time, your exposure would obviously be higher. And I definitely want folks to know this is not something to be alarmed about. And a child using this product one time, maybe many times, may never be harmed by it. But the fact is, kids are being exposed to these low levels of carcinogens again and again and again. And a kid may be getting it from the bubble bath, the baby shampoo, the body lotion. So the industries\u2019 argument that it\u2019s just a little bit of carcinogen, it just doesn\u2019t add up to reality. <\/p>\n
SK: I mean if it was on the ingredient list, of all the ingredients listed, if it read \u2018just a little carcinogen\u2019, just as you said, I can imagine parent\u2019s reaction.<\/p>\n
SM: Right, if the label said, \u201cJust a little bit of carcinogen, don\u2019t worry.\u201d Would you buy that product? Probably not. Just as a precautionary approach. Hey, I\u2019d rather have a product that doesn\u2019t have a little bit of carcinogen in it.<\/p>\n
SK: Now what about some of the safe, eco-friendly products that one might pay a pretty penny at, say, a Whole Foods. Did you test any of these products that are supposedly a lot safer and did they come out looking good?<\/p>\n
SM: In this round of testing, we only looked at the conventional toxic selling products. But I can tell you that many of the products in the natural product industry have figured out how to solve these problems. While you do have to be careful also of products that claim to be natural and organic. Look at the label. Look them up on line. We have a wonderful free database where you can look up products called Skin Deep, and you can find that at www.safecosmetics.org. So many safer brands. And whole foods actually has a new standard called Premium body care standard which some products in their store have and any of those products will definitely be free of these carcinogens as well as synthetic fragrances, parabens, and other problematic chemicals.<\/p>\n
SK: Now Stacey, what has the reaction, if any, been from the industry, particularly Johnson\u2019s & Johnson\u2019s. As you said, number one choice for hospitals. Have they responded to your report?<\/p>\n
SM: Well, Johnson\u2019s & Johnson\u2019s responded with a statement, which I think is pretty disappointing, they say, Well, our products have been used for decades and they\u2019re safe and they said essentially that we need these chemicals in order to keep products free of harmful bacteria and to make them as gentle as possible. <\/p>\n
SK: Now, isn\u2019t a little bit of harmful bacteria safer than a little carcinogen?<\/p>\n
SM Harmful bacteria is also bad, but the thing is there are other preservatives that they could be using that don\u2019t sensitize the skin, that don\u2019t contaminated with carcinogen, so companies have already figured out how to preserve products, how to make them gentle and bubbly and wonderful without any of the chemicals that are contaminated with formaldehyde and one four dioxide. So Johnson and Johnson should be in that category of companies that are making products as safe as they can be.<\/p>\n
\u2026..SK: Stacy Malken is my guest, she\u2019s the author of, Not Just a Pretty Face, the Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry. She\u2019s also the co-author of the report Toxic Tub, Contaminants In Children\u2019s Bath and Personal Care Products. Stacey, congress took action on the presence of the chemical called Pthalates, a type of chemical used in children\u2019s toys to make them soft, and they did ban it. Of course companies are being allowed to sell off their inventory before they can start using Pthalate-free toys. This is something that Europeans have already adopted for several years. What action, if any, do you foresee the U.S. government taking, based on your report, is there something in the works?<\/p>\n
SM: Well, we absolutely need to reform the cosmetic regulations. Which were put on the books in 1938 and we\u2019ve learned a lot since then about the chemicals being used in personal care products. So we need to rewrite the laws to regulate cosmetics and that\u2019s something that the campaign for safe cosmetics is working on and working with members of congress. And it was announced at our press release that there will be a bill introduced soon at the federal level. So I definitely encourage folk to check that out. Sign up for the action list on our website, safecosmetics.org, and get involved in that effort because it is going to be a big challenge and a big fight. The Toxic Toys legislation that you mentioned is really a good preview to show that congress is ready to take action on these issues. Put some strong laws in place. The industry will resist them mightily. But Europe has had pthalate-free toys for ten years. So companies already know how to make toys without pthalates, they just haven\u2019t been doing it in the United States because we don\u2019t make them. And I think we\u2019d all agree Americans deserve the safest products we can have. As does everyone in the world. And I think also that these changes are going to be good for industry. Because this is what the market wants. They want safe products. Pure products. Toxic free products. So companies need to start making them. Making products as safe as they can be. As toxic safe as they can be. And those are the products that consumers are going to want in the future.<\/p>\n
SK: So finally, Stacy, what advice can you give to listeners. To parents of young children in terms of what they should be looking out for. I mean certainly they can try to avoid those products on your report that tested for formaldehyde and\/or 1,4-dioxane. But, as you said, you didn\u2019t test for products from stores like Whole Foods. Not to endorse this big corporation, but is that at least one way to be sure that your child has a safe product? <\/p>\n
SM: Well, I think it\u2019s about just educating ourselves and definitely looking at the labels. <\/p>\n
SK: But the labels don\u2019t tell you.<\/p>\n
SM: The labels don\u2019t tell you, but just looking at the chemicals on the labels and if you see a long list of chemicals that include things like PEG or Sodium Laurel Chlorphate Perterniam 15. There\u2019s a long list of chemicals to look for, but I think the best advice for parents is to look at the labels and realize simpler is better. Choosing products with fewer chemicals. Trying to avoid synthetic fragrance. Looking for some of those chemical names that you see in our report. And if you see one or any of them, you can pretty much be assured that that\u2019s not the best product that it can be.<\/p>\n
SK: And on the issue of packaging, how does one recognize a non-PVC package?<\/p>\n
SM: You look at the bottom, the recycling symbol. PVC is the # 3, so you definitely want to avoid any personal care products that are in the # 3 container. And you will see that in the recycling symbol on the bottom of the package.<\/p>\n
SK: You can also look at the Skin Deep database at SafeCosmetics.org. Look up your favorite products. It will tell you what\u2019s in them. You can also look up all the baby products and choose ones that have the green circles, which have the safer products. So there are things that parents can do to reduce chemical exposures in the home, now, today. But also I think it\u2019s important to say that we can\u2019t just shop our way out of this problem. We really need to put new federal regulations in place that require companies to tell us what\u2019s in their products and to make the safest products they can make. <\/p>\n
Special Thanks to Celina for transcribing this interview<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"| the entire program Often marked as \u201csafe and gentle\u201d, children\u2019s bath products are found to be anything but by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. This nonprofit coalition of environmental groups is the first to document the widespread contamination of children\u2019s products with two known carcinogens: Formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane. None of the products tested by […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-daily-program","category-transcripts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/uprisingradio.org\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"Safe](\"http:\/\/www.safecosmetics.org\/img\/pic\/ToxicTub_report-cover.jpg\")
Often marked as \u201csafe and gentle\u201d, children\u2019s bath products are found to be anything but by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. This nonprofit coalition of environmental groups is the first to document the widespread contamination of children\u2019s products with two known carcinogens: Formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane. None of the products tested by the coalition list formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane on the label as they are not added intentionally but are the toxic byproducts of chemical manufacturing. The Food and Drug Administration does not require contaminants be listed on ingredient labels leaving consumers with no way of knowing just how toxic their child\u2019s bath may be. According to the EPA, Formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane are both probable human carcinogens. Familiar and trusted names like Johnson\u2019s, Baby Magic and Sesame Street were found to contain one or both of these hidden carcinogens. Of all the products tested, 67% contained 1,4-dioxane and 82% contained formaldehyde. The FDA has yet to list alternative preservatives that are safe and effective allowing companies labeling loopholes that continue to leave children exposed daily to toxins. Compounding the danger is the exceptional vulnerability of children to harmful chemicals.<\/p>\n