Charlottesville Personal Injury Lawyer - chemicals

Johnson & Johnson Under Fire Over Baby Products

Greg Webb — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:46:52 GMT

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of health, environmental and consumer groups, is demanding that Johnson & Johnson remove tiny amounts of two chemicals, which are believed to cause cancer, from their baby shampoo and other products. They are asking the company to reformulate its personal care products so that by the end of August the products can be free of 1,4-dioxane and any preservatives that release formaldehyde. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), these two chemicals are probable carcinogens; formaldehyde is also an eye, skin and respiratory irritant. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics believes the shampoo marketed as the number one choice for hospitals should not contain possible carcinogens.

In tests run by the campaign, an independent laboratory found the shampoo contained about 210 parts per million of formaldehyde. About two dozen other products out of forty-eight tested had similar or even higher levels. The shampoo also had low levels of 1,4-dioxane, which has been banned by the European Union. The chemical was found in three Aveeno baby wash products made by Johnson & Johnson, Johnson's moisture care and oatmeal baby washes, and about twenty-five baby and personal care products made by other companies. The campaign claims there are no safe levels of carcinogens. They also note the fact that these chemicals are not listed on the products labels because they are contaminants, not ingredients. In a letter to Johnson & Johnson’s chief executive, the campaign states many other companies make similar products by using ingredients with no contamination concerns. It is also noted that Johnson & Johnson does not include formaldehyde in the same products sold in Japan since it is banned in that country. Because the FDA does not regulate cosmetic products, the same has not been done in America.

Johnson & Johnson claims the figures the organizations are using can result from making the products safe from bacteria growth and gentle for the use of babies. They further claim many global regulatory agencies consider these trace levels found by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to be safe. Johnson & Johnson claim to take concerns about their products very seriously and would consider meeting with the campaign, though they have no plans to remove the two ingredients from their products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Report Says Children’s Products Contain Dangerous Chemicals

Greg Webb — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:00:00 GMT

A March publication from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported finding formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, a trace contaminant of chemicals used in cosmetic products, in 55 children’s personal-care products. The Environmental Protection Agency lists these chemicals as probable human carcinogens. Seventeen of the products contained both chemicals, including Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Shampoo.

The same month, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand announced the “Safe Baby Products Act,” which asks the FDA to investigate chemicals used in children’s toiletries. She expressed concerns as a mother because many of the products listed in the report were products that she kept in her bathroom.

The editor of Stats.org, Trevor Butterworth, conveyed reservations about the implications of the report. Butterworth said that people are exposed to similarly low levels of these chemicals every day in food, air, and shower water, and that studies linking them to cancer are based on ingesting or inhaling large quantities of the chemicals in industrial or lab settings.

A statement from Johnson & Johnson said that all of their products meet or exceed requirements in every country in which they are sold.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Provision In Obama’s Spending Bill Strengthens Chemical Disclosures

Greg Webb — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:22:04 GMT

In a little-noticed provision of President Obama’s spending bill, companies will now have to provide more detailed disclosure of the toxic chemicals they release into the environment. This measure overturns a 2006 regulation passed by President Bush that eased the requirements for almost six hundred chemicals and will affect oil refineries, chemical manufacturers, automakers and electronic manufacturers nationwide. It restores the previous standard, established by law in 1986, which requires all facilities to inform the public about any chemical releases that total five hundred pounds a year or more, as opposed to Bush’s two thousand pound threshold. Because of their high number of chemical plants, New Jersey and California are the states most affected by the change. Under the Bush rule, more than 3,500 facilities did not have to report detailed information about their toxic chemical emissions and waste management practices.

Officials from the affected industries estimate that they spend $650 million a year obeying the current requirements. They argue the changes put in place by the Bush administration lowered their regulatory burden without posing a danger to Americans’ health and the new measure may impose substantial compliance costs. Environmental activists, on the other hand, argue that the provision is important because it gives companies incentive to decrease toxic emissions and helps provoke communities to mobilize for a cleaner environment.

The previous law, referred to above, was signed into law by President Reagan. If it was OK for Reagan, why was it bad for Mr. Bush? The law was not broken before, so it is not broken now that President Obama seeks to reinstate it. Corporate interests, i.e., big money, had the ear of the previous administration, and that is the reason Mr. Bush reversed Mr. Reagan.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Judge Rules CPSC Must Correct Loophole Regarding Hazardous Chemical

Greg Webb — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:59:16 GMT

A judge has recently ruled that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) may not allow toys containing toxic manufacturing chemicals to remain on shelves after a ban goes into effect on February 10, 2009. The judge said the commission, whose purpose is to protect the American public, must correct a loophole that allows substances to remain in toys made before the ban. The ban relates to phthalates, which are dangerous chemicals used in soft plastics that when absorbed through the skin or mouth can interfere with reproductive hormones. A federal law passed last summer banned the chemical from being used in toys.

This decision has been considered a victory for children’s health. Had this decision not been made, consumers would have no idea whether or not their products contain hazardous chemicals or not. This ruling came much to the dismay of manufacturers who claim they would have to pull millions of dollars worth of products off of store shelves to comply. The CPSC plans not to appeal the decision.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb