Environmental Working Group
Published on Environmental Working Group (http://www.ewg.org)

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Kid's Bath Products

Published March 12, 2009

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Kid's Bath Products

Children’s bath products are often marketed as safe and gentle. However, laboratory tests commissioned by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found these products are commonly contaminated with formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane – and, in many cases, both. These two chemicals, linked to cancer and skin allergies, are anything but safe and gentle and are completely unregulated in children’s bath products.

The Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) oversees the safety of personal care products in the U.S., but lacks basic authority needed to ensure that products are actually safe. 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. The FDA also does not require contaminants to be listed on product ingredient labels.1 As a result, consumers have no way of knowing if their products contain toxic contaminants.

This report is the first to document the widespread contamination of children’s products with formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1,4-dioxane is a probable carcinogen.2 The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission states that “the presence of 1,4-dioxane, even as a trace contaminant, is cause for concern.”3 1,4-dioxane is a byproduct of a chemical processing technique called ethoxylation used to make petroleum-based cosmetic ingredients gentler to the skin. Manufacturers can easily remove the toxic byproduct, but are not required to under federal cosmetic safety standards.

Formaldehyde is a probable carcinogen, according to the EPA,4 though the risk of cancer from absorption through the skin is not fully understood.5 The chemical can also trigger adverse skin reactions in children and adults who are sensitive to the chemical.6-9 Contact dermatitis specialists recommend that children avoid exposure to products containing formaldehyde.10 Formaldehyde contaminates personal care products when common preservatives called formaldehyde releasers break down over time in the container.

None of the products tested list formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane on the ingredient label. They are not added to products intentionally, but are toxic byproducts of chemical manufacturing and product formulation.

To better understand the extent of the problem, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and its partner Environmental Working Group sent samples of popular children’s bath products to Analytical Sciences, an independent laboratory in Petaluma, Calif., to be tested. The products chosen for testing contained ingredients commonly associated with 1,4-dioxane or formaldehyde contamination.11

61% of the children’s bath products tested for this report contained both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane.

We tested 48 products for 1,4-dioxane. From that batch, we also tested 28 of those products for formaldehyde. Highlights of results from the independent lab tests include:

Multiple Contaminants:

Formaldehyde:

1,4-dioxane:

As this report shows, dozens of leading body care products for babies and children contain the toxic chemicals formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane. Many of these products also contain other ingredients with known or suspected links to cancer or other serious health problems – showing that, unbeknownst to most parents, harmful chemicals in the bath may be adding up.

The evidence is compelling: The United States must reform cosmetic policies to protect people, especially babies and children, from unnecessary toxic chemical exposures.

References

1 There are two major loopholes in ingredient labeling laws – companies do not have to list the components of fragrance on labels, nor do they have to list contaminants, also known as impurities. The Campaign has released several reports that highlight concerns about fragrance. For example, see “A Little Prettier” (available at www.safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=367) and “Not Too Pretty” (available at www.safecosmetics.org/downloads/NotTooPretty_report.pdf).

2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web Site. “1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide).” www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/dioxane.html. Viewed December 20, 2008.

3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. “1,4-Dioxane, CAS No. 123-91-1: Reasonably Anticipated to be a Human Carcinogen.” Eleventh Report on Carcinogens. December 2002. Available at:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s080diox.pdf.

4 Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web site. “Formaldehyde.”
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/formalde.html. Viewed January 5, 2009.

5 Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Priority Existing Chemical Assessment Report No. 28: Formaldehyde. November 2006. Page 68. Available at: www.nicnas.gov.au/Publications/CAR/PEC/PEC28/PEC_28_Full_Report_PDF.pdf.

6 Flyvholm MA, Menné T. Allergic contact dermatitis from formaldehyde. A case study focusing on sources of formaldehyde exposure. Contact Dermatitis. 1992 Jul;27(1):27-36.

7 Boyvat A, Akyol A, Gürgey E. Contact sensitivity to preservatives in Turkey. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;52(6):333-337.

8 Pratt MD, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF Jr, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, Marks JG, Mathias CG, Rietschel RL, Sasseville D, Sherertz EF, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS, Zug K. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001-2002 study period. Dermatitis. 2004;15(4):176-83. Erratum in: Dermatitis. 2005;16(2):106.

9 Jacob SE, Brod B and Crawford GH. Clinically Relevant Patch Test Reactions in Children—A United States Based Study. Pediatric Dermatology. 2008;25(5):520–527.
Perrenoud D, Bircher A, Hunziker T, Suter H, Bruckner-Tuderman L, Stäger J, Thürlimann W, Schmid P, Suard A, Hunziker N. Frequency of sensitization to 13 common preservatives in Switzerland. Swiss Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;30(5):276-9.

10 Jacob SE and Steele T. Avoiding Formaldehyde Allergic Reactions In Children. Pediatric Annals 2007;36(1):55-6.

11 The Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Cosmetics Database was used for this research. www.cosmeticsdatabase.com.

12 Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-food Products. Opinion concerning a clarification on the formaldehyde and para-formaldehyde entry in Directive 76/768/EEC on cosmetic products. Opinion: European Comission. 2002. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/sccp/out187_en.pdf.

13 Salvador, Amparo and Alberto Chisvert, editors. Analysis of Cosmetic Products. Elsevier. Amsterdam. 2007. p. 215. http://books.google.com/books?id=IYf8FDXlD5oC&dq=Analysis+of+Cosmetic+Pr.... Viewed February 25, 2009.

14 European Union Cosmetic Ingredients & Substances. Annex II: List of substances which must not form part of the composition of cosmetic products. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/cosmetics/cosing/pdf/COSING_Annex%20II.pd.... Note, the EU lists dioxane as prohibited. According to the United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration, Dioxane is a synonym for 1,4-Dioxane. See www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/dioxane/recognition.html.

15 Europa Consumer Affairs. “The Rapid Alert System for Non-Food Products - Week 39, 2006.”
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/dyna/rapex/create_rapex.cfm?rx_id=99 Viewed February 28, 2009.

Children’s Bath Products Contaminated with Formaldehyde, 1,4-Dioxane

Washington − Despite marketing claims like “gentle” and “pure,” dozens of top-selling children’s bath products are contaminated with the cancer-causing chemicals formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, according to product test results released today by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. The chemicals were not disclosed on product labels because contaminants are exempt from labeling laws.

This study is the first to document the widespread presence of both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane in bath products for children. Many products tested for this study contained both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, including the top-selling Johnson’s Baby Shampoo and Sesame Street Bubble Bath.

Formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane are known to cause cancer in animals and are listed as probable human carcinogens by the Environmental Protection Agency. Formaldehyde can also trigger skin rashes in some children.

“Given the recent data showing that formaldehyde and the formaldehyde-releasing preservative, quaternium-15, are significant sensitizers and causal agents of contact dermatitis in children, it would be prudent to have these removed from children’s products,” said Sharon Jacob, M.D., assistant professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California San Diego and contact dermatitis specialist at Rady Children’s Hospital.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission says that “the presence of 1,4-dioxane, even as a trace contaminant, is cause for concern.”

Contrary to industry statements, there are no regulatory standards that limit formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane or most other toxic chemicals in personal care products sold in the United States. Other nations have stricter standards. Formaldehyde is banned from personal care products in Japan and Sweden. The European Union bans 1,4-dioxane from personal care products and has recalled products found to contain the chemical.

But there are signs the U.S. is gearing to catch up. Key Congressional leaders point to the findings of this report as further evidence of the need for action. “When products for babies are labeled ‘gentle’ and ‘pure,’ parents expect that they are just that,” said Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.). “To think that cancer-causing chemicals are contaminating baby shampoos and lotions is horrifying. I intend to soon introduce legislation requiring greater oversight of our cosmetics industry. We need to ensure that the chemicals that are used in our everyday products are safe.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said, “The fact that we are bathing our kids in products contaminated with carcinogens shows how woefully out of date our cosmetics laws are and how urgently they need to be updated. The science has moved forward, now the FDA needs to catch up and be given the authority to protect the health of Americans.” Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) commented that “Formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane are better suited for the chem lab, not a child's bathtub. This important report shows that 'No More Tears' can trigger toxic fears, and it provides another reason why these and other cosmetic products must be further regulated.”

For the study, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics commissioned an independent laboratory to test 48 top-selling children’s products for 1,4-dioxane; 28 of those products were also tested for formaldehyde. The lab found that:

  • 17 out of 28 products tested – 61 percent – contained both formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane; these included Johnson’s Baby Shampoo, Sesame Street Bubble Bath, Grins & Giggles Milk & Honey Baby Wash and Huggies Naturally Refreshing Cucumber & Green Tea Baby Wash.
  • 23 out of 28 products – 82 percent – contained formaldehyde at levels ranging from 54 to 610 parts per million (ppm). Baby Magic Baby Lotion had the highest levels of formaldehyde.
  • 32 out of 48 products – 67 percent – contained 1,4-dioxane at levels ranging from 0.27 to 35 ppm. American Girl shower products had the highest levels of 1,4-dioxane.

“There is absolutely no reason why manufacturers can’t remove hazardous chemicals in products being applied to babies’ bodies every day,” said Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., president and CEO of the Breast Cancer Fund. “Children are exposed to toxic chemicals from many sources. We need to protect them from these kinds of repeated, unnecessary exposures.”

“Products made in the U.S. and marketed for children should not contain chemicals linked to cancer or any other health problem,” said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at Environmental Working Group and creator of the Skin Deep cosmetic safety database (www.cosmeticsdatabase.com). “Congress urgently needs to reform federal policy to protect the most vulnerable members of our society by ensuring that the personal care products we use every day are free from harmful chemicals.”

Devra Lee Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H., professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, said that the usual regulatory approach of assessing risk one chemical at a time does not account for the combined effects of very low levels of hidden contaminants in personal care products and from other sources. “Rather than waiting for definitive proof of human harm, we must lower exposures to controllable agents that we know or suspect cause cancer," Davis said.

The full results of the study can be found in the report “No More Toxic Tub” at www.safecosmetics.org/toxictub.

# # #

Founding members of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics include: Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, Breast Cancer Fund, Clean Water Fund, Commonweal, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition, National Black Environmental Justice Network, National Environmental Trust and Women's Voices for the Earth. www.SafeCosmetics.org

Partner organizations in the following states assisted in the release of this report and may be available for interviews and local angles. Please contact Shannon Coughlin, scoughlin@breastcancerfund.org or 415-336-2246, for more information.

California (Northern and Southern)
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
New Hampshire
New York (NYC and upstate)
Pennsylvania
Texas
Washington
Washington, D.C.
Wisconsin

Source URL:
http://www.ewg.org/report/toxic-tub/31209
1