Check out this lawsuit in NJ from Feb 2010

By: MRSROBINSON 1 month ago

Everything we use or consume these days is poisonous. It can be banned but they still use it because they know it will be years before it is discovered. The FDA needs to step up their game. So many businesses and federal departments getting paid to do literally NOTHING to help the general public.   

By: Geneies248 1 month ago

 UGH! and i am  so pro johnson and johnson baby shampoo, not anymore!!!!!!!! Thats awful that they can put them in a product like that, we as a society I think or maybe just me have trusted them with our children for years..... SO TERRIBLE

By: OneInspiredMom 1 month ago

I kno i was SO PRO johnson and johnson too!!! The problem with the FDA is all they regulate is food and drugs. ALL OTHER PRODUCTS CAN HAVE anything they want in them and no one monitors them. It would cost too much money to do that and all those business would have to pay out lost of money to change what they have and how they test etc.... its like the tobacco industry.....

Check out this website and see what you have in ur house thats on this list. I was SHOCKED. (Quaternium 15 is  FORMALDYHIDE). - i can't get it to be a link inhere so just copy and paste.

http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/household/brands?tbl=chem&id=138

By: Regina 1 month ago

It seems as if everything we come into contact with daily causes cancer. We cant escape it . Its in the air we breathe the food and water we eat and drink also the products we use on our bodys. All we can do is our best to stay away from what causes the worst harm to ourselves. Pray and hope we make it through without having cancer hit our familys. Most of us know someone in our family that has or has had cancer. We are all touched in some way. Sad but true.

By: Packagedealx3 1 month ago

Actually I would have to say that Johnson & Johnson is behaving responsibly.  They would not be responsible to their shareholders nor their employees if they allowed a lawsuit to proceed when they can avoid it and the first legal hurdle would be challenging the ability to sue, it doesn't mean that they think the merits of the suit are wrong.

I have delved into several case studies of Johnson & Johnson over the years tutoring students.  They went way beyond what was necessary, voluntarily as a matter of principle when the Tylenol poisonings occurred and this company pretty much single-handedly revolutionized the consumer packaging industry for safe packaging protocol just as Jack-in-the-Box did for food handling when it experienced deaths due to e-coli.

If you reread the quoted post, the company did what most have, complied with industry standards and yes perhaps they did not do their own due diligence because in how many years no one has linked cancer to using baby shampoo on a child.  The product from the company's perspective is safe and perhaps they should have with every single product they make looked at the chemicals as more knowledge has been gained from a purely scientific/medical standpoint.

The issue has been brought to their attention and when they say reformulate I actually trust them to mean they will find a means for producing the same effect while eliminating the chemical that is currently a problem.  I don't know that it is fair morally or legally to expect a person or a company to anticipate every single problem particularly when there have been on incidents to create any suspicion that a product is problematic.  It does make a difference how they respond and J & J is not just trying to ride out a lawsuit it is being responsive to the issue.  I think those people that were loyal to the company should continue to be because until they reconstitute the product, you haven't really given them an opportunity to respond.

And here the thing as well, I cannot help thinking that there is no medical/scientifically based risk to a child for using baby shampoo until they are old enough to switch to adult shampoo.  I never shampooed my kids every day because they really don't need it until they reach a certain age and even when they do, it is on their head for like 60 seconds and if they are talking about trace amounts of a substance physically it is probably not even a tear drop sized amount that is in every shampoo application.  I don't imagine this is absorbing into a child's skin even if they use the shampoo every day for years.

You cannot just look at a potentially cancer causing agent without evaluating the environment, circumstances of use and other issues.  We unfortunately live in a cancer causing world in a cancer abundant age but I suspect your children are more harmed by exhaust smoke than baby shampoo.  I think it would be impossible to eliminate everything from your life that could cause cancer, like with saccharin, it would require huge quantities to equal what was given to the lab rats they were testing years ago, like pounds of it.  So we need to pay attention to what we read and hear but also guard against becoming so alarmed by it that we can hardly live because we are so conscious of eliminating anything that has a potentially bad consequence no matter how exceedingly remote that may be.