There have been concerns and debates surrounding whether baby magic, a popular brand of baby care products, can cause cancer. It is important to evaluate these claims with a critical eye and consider the available evidence. One key concern is the presence of potentially harmful ingredients in baby magic products. Some individuals argue that certain chemicals found in these products, such as parabens and phthalates, may increase the risk of cancer. Parabens are preservatives often used in cosmetic formulations, while phthalates are used to enhance fragrance. Studies have suggested that these chemicals may have endocrine-disrupting properties and may potentially contribute to the development of cancer.

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, [email protected] 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

Probable carcinogens in some baby products

WASHINGTON — More than half the baby shampoo, lotions and other infant-care products analyzed by a health advocacy group were found to contain trace amounts of two chemicals that are believed to cause cancer, the organization said Thursday.

Some of the biggest names on the market, including Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo and Baby Magic lotion, tested positive for 1,4-dioxane or formaldehyde or both, the non-profit Campaign for Safe Cosmetics reported.

The chemicals, both characterized as probable carcinogens by the Environmental Protection Agency, are not added intentionally to products and are not listed on ingredient labels. Rather, they appear to be byproducts of the manufacturing process.

The organization tested 48 baby bath products. Of those, 32 contained trace amounts of 1,4-dioxane and 23 contained small amounts of formaldehyde. Seventeen products tested positive for both chemicals.

"Our intention is not to alarm parents but to inform parents that products that claim to be gentle and pure are contaminated with carcinogens, which is completely unnecessary," said Stacy Malkan, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which is calling for the federal government to more aggressively regulate personal-care products.

Companies that manufacture and sell products tested by the group said they comply with government standards.

"The FDA and other government agencies around the world consider these trace levels safe, and all our products meet or exceed the regulatory requirements in every country where they are sold," Johnson & Johnson said. "We are disappointed that the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has inaccurately characterized the safety of our products, misrepresented the overwhelming consensus of scientists and government agencies that review the safety of ingredients, and unnecessarily alarmed parents."

Does baby magic cause cancer

Many baby shampoos, lotions and other infant care products can contain toxins linked to cancer, birth defects, hormone disruption, learning disabilities and reproductive harm. And, some of these harmful chemicals don’t even appear on product labels. This is not necessarily due to deliberate omission, but because the chemicals are formed as a byproduct during the manufacturing process rather than added as an ingredient.

Health advocates argue that federal regulators have not considered the cumulative effect of chemicals in personal care products. “The levels we’ve found are relatively low, and the industry often says there’s just a little bit of carcinogen in my product,” says Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “The problem is, we’re finding a little bit of carcinogen in many products. Many of these products are used every day, so we’ve got repeated and frequent exposure to these low levels of chemicals. They’re not the safest and purest products, and parents ought to know that.” In addition, government studies have not examined the effect of chemical exposure on the particular vulnerabilities of infants and children, whose bodies are still developing, advocates say.

It is important to note that companies that manufacture and sell baby care products are largely in compliance with government standards. Until legislation passes to require stronger regulation of the cosmetics industry, the best thing we can do as parents is to reduce our use of manufactured body care products on our children, or find products with fewer ingredients. Even labels that say ‘gentle’ or ‘natural’ or ‘pure’ or even ‘organic’ may not be as safe as they should be.

Safer options are becoming more available to families, and changes in manufacturing processes are helping to bring down the levels of some of these troublesome contaminants. However, these actions are slow, and stronger policies are needed to protect our children and ensure all accessible products are safe. In the meantime, here are some tips for reducing exposure to potentially harmful ingredients in baby care and personal care products, and the chemicals to keep on your radar:

1,4-dioxane is a trace contaminant in some cosmetic products. It is not intentionally added, but forms as a byproduct during the manufacturing process of certain ingredients, including certain detergents, foaming agents, emulsifiers and solvents. Because it is a byproduct, 1,4-dioxane is not listed among the ingredients on product labels.

Some of the biggest names on the market contain trace amounts of this potentially cancer-causing chemical. Strong evidence has been found in animal studies, however, it should be noted that the data in human epidemiological studies are insufficient to determine carcinogenicity in humans, which is why they are classified as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

The FDA periodically monitors the levels of 1,4-dioxane in cosmetics products, and has observed that levels have dropped significantly over time due to changes made in manufacturing processes. FDA has not established a safe limit for this chemical in shampoo, lotion and other toiletries, and maintains that the trace amounts found in those products are not harmful. In an independent risk assessment, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) concluded that 1,4-dioxane is safe at trace levels of ≤10 parts per million. According to the Cosmetic Ingredient Review, an industry funded, government-backed panel that assesses the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics, “dioxane should not be in any baby care or children’s cosmetic, period, because it is possible to take it out.”

“Our intention is not to alarm parents, but to inform parents that products that claim to be gentle and pure are contaminated with carcinogens, which is completely unnecessary,” said Stacy Malkan, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, which is calling for the government to more strictly regulate personal care products such as shampoo, lotion and makeup. Companies that manufacture and sell the products tested by the group stressed that they comply with government standards.”

“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,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.). “The science has moved forward; now the FDA needs to catch up and be given the authority to protect the health of Americans.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) called the findings “horrifying” and said she intends to introduce legislation that would require stronger oversight of the cosmetics industry.

How to avoid it: 1,4-dioxane may be a byproduct of ingredients identifiable by the prefix, word, or syllables “PEG,” “Sodium Laurel Sulfate (SLS),” “Polyethylene,” “Polyethylene glycol,” “Polyoxyethylene,” “-eth-,” or “-oxynol-.”

Phthalates

Phthalates are endocrine disruptors that are linked to reproductive malformations in baby boys, reduced fertility, developmental disorders, asthma, and increased allergic reactions. They are commonly found in fragranced cleaning and personal care products, as well as plastics. David Andrews, senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, says “We recommend looking to avoid phthalates…one of the concerns is that we know the chemicals end up in the bloodstream.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics found that phthalate exposure is widespread and variable in infants. Infants exposed to baby care products, specifically baby shampoos, baby lotions, and baby powder, showed increased levels of phthalate metabolites in their urine. The study did not determine the level of phthalates in any given product, nor did it establish an association between these findings and any health effects. Subsequent research and statements by the FDA continue to maintain that exposures to phthalates from cosmetics are low compared to levels that are thought to cause adverse effects. Unfortunately, data about health effects on infants and children are limited or missing; and, in general, infants and children are more vulnerable to chemical exposures. In 2008, Congress banned specific levels of certain phthalates (BBP, DEHP, and DBP) in toys, citing studies showing the toxic effects of these substances. The EPA is adding eight phthalates to their “Chemicals of Concern” list, meaning the agency will keep a close watch on the chemicals with more stringent limitations — and even banning — possible in the future.

How to avoid them: choose fragrance-free products, stay away from plastic food containers, and choose baby bottles with hospital grade silicon nipples. To be extra sure, look for labels that say “no phthalates” or “phthalate-free.”

Product

Baby Magic items are available to purchase at Amazon.com and select retailers.

None of the baby magic products are formulated with ingredients that contain gluten.

I saw the campaign for safe cosmetics toxic bath time report and it said baby magic contains 1, 4-dioxane and quaternium-15, is this true?

No, Baby Magic does not use quaternium-15 as an ingredient in any of our products, we don’t use 1,4-dioxane in our manufacturing process and we have not had those ingredients in our products since 2009.

No, Baby Magic products do not contain formaldehyde donors.

No, Baby Magic is not tested on animals.

Baby Magic products typically have a shelf life of 2-3 years.

Yes, all Baby Magic products are Paraben-Free.

The Glycerin used in Baby Magic is from an all-vegetable source.

Baby Magic products do not contain soy. The Vitamin E in Baby Magic products is synthetically derived, and therefore not derived from soy.

Hypoallergenic products are formulated to produce fewer allergic reactions than other skin care products. These products are more gentle on the skin than non-hypoallergenic products.

Yes, Baby Magic is manufactured in Dallas, TX, USA. Baby Magic products are current with all US regulations set forth by the FDA.

Our retail partner Nationwidecampus.com ships to Canada. Visit their online site or call (800) 269-6181 or (732) 544-5432 for more information.

Please visit Baby Magic’s Facebook and Instagram page where we will post special offers, in-store promotions, sweepstakes, contests, and let you know when we have coupons available. You can also sign up for our e-newsletter on our home page.

Other

Didn’t find your answer? Click here to send us your question.

Studies have suggested that these chemicals may have endocrine-disrupting properties and may potentially contribute to the development of cancer. However, the evidence regarding their direct link to cancer in baby magic products is limited and inconclusive. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set regulations and guidelines to ensure the safety of cosmetic products, including those for babies.

Manufacturers are required to meet specific safety standards, and baby magic complies with these regulations. However, it is important to note that these regulations may not specifically address the concerns surrounding the potential cancer-causing effects of certain chemicals. Additionally, the American Cancer Society states that there is no definitive evidence linking the use of baby care products, including baby magic, to an increased risk of cancer. However, they do recommend that individuals, especially infants and children, limit their exposure to certain chemicals whenever possible. It is important for parents and caregivers to make informed decisions based on their individual comfort level and the available evidence. If there are concerns about the potential risks associated with using baby magic or any other cosmetic products, it may be advisable to consult with a pediatrician or dermatologist for personalized guidance. In conclusion, the question of whether baby magic causes cancer is a complex and ongoing debate. While some individuals have expressed concerns about certain ingredients found in these products, the evidence linking baby magic specifically to cancer is limited. It is crucial to stay informed, consider the available evidence, and consult with healthcare professionals to make well-informed decisions regarding the use of baby care products..

Reviews for "The Science Behind Baby Magic and Cancer Claims"

1. John - 1 star - I was extremely disappointed with "Does baby magic cause cancer". The content was poorly researched and lacked any credibility. The author seemed to cherry-pick evidence and manipulate data to support their biased viewpoint. I was expecting a well-balanced and informative read, but instead, I found myself skimming through pages of unfounded claims and fear-mongering tactics. Save your money and look elsewhere for reliable information on this topic.

2. Emily - 2 stars - As a concerned parent, I picked up "Does baby magic cause cancer" hoping to gain valuable insights and guidance. However, this book fell short of my expectations. The author presented a one-sided perspective without considering alternative viewpoints or providing a comprehensive analysis of the topic. I felt that the book lacked scientific evidence and relied heavily on anecdotal stories, which left me feeling uncertain and confused. Overall, I found the book to be underwhelming and would not recommend it to others searching for reliable information about baby care and health.

3. Michael - 2 stars - "Does baby magic cause cancer" failed to deliver on its promise of providing evidence-based information. While the book touched on the topic of carcinogens in baby products, it veered off into tangents and failed to present a cohesive argument. There were numerous instances where the author made sweeping statements without backing them up with credible sources. I found myself questioning the reliability and accuracy of the information presented. If you're looking for a well-researched and scientifically supported examination of the topic, I suggest looking elsewhere.

4. Sarah - 1 star - I regret purchasing "Does baby magic cause cancer". The content was filled with fear-inducing language and lacked sufficient evidence to support its claims. The author seemed more interested in sensationalizing the topic than providing factual information. I would caution any reader to approach this book with skepticism and seek more credible sources for information on baby care and health. Overall, a disappointing read that I would not recommend to others.

Is Baby Magic Putting Your Baby at Risk for Cancer?