From: Linda on

<meatnub(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195056433.072403.203910(a)50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> We have Johnson and Johnson night time lotion and what-not for our 6
> month old boy, and as of late I have been wanting to stop putting it
> on him for fear of the chemicals in it being absorbed into his body
> and bloodstream, giving him hormonal issues, skin issues, etc.
>
> Am i being paranoid? He doesn't have dry skin, sometimes his cheeks
> feel a TINY TINY bit dry, but that's it really.
>
> We also like giving him massages with it too.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
I started looking into the whole chemical thing when DD arrived and it's
strange how your world perspective changes when you have a child. Amongst
other things I'm now, for example grinding my own organic wheat to make
fresh whole grain sourdough bread so my dd gets the maximum nutrition and
avoids preservatives etc etc DH of course thinks I'm going over the top and
maybe I am somewhat - but in looking into it I now believe that many of the
everyday foods we eat are bad for us, and many products we use are full of
potentially bad chemicals and carcinogens. I don't know about Johnsons
Nighttime Lotion, but apparantly Johnsons No More Tears Baby Shampoo doesn't
"not hurt" eyes, it just anesthetizes the eyes so they don't feel the sting
of the soap that is still going straight over their eyes. That wasn't good
enough for me so I went and found a different product which is just gentle
and doesn't sting to begin with. I guess what I'm trying to say though is
that I found sooooo many things that could cause potential problems that I
have to choose what I'm going to do something about and what I'll let slide.
For example we live in a city so we have exhaust fumes around us, powerlines
and so forth, I use a microwave and we eat red meat. We're not going to
move to the country and unplug from the grid (at this point in time) so I'm
selective in what I can do.
This has gotten rather long, and I'm not sure it's making sense, so I'll try
and summarize - be paranoid, research all you can, and then decide if it's
something you can easily change, or if it's worth the extra effort compared
to how risky you think the product is.
FWIW I don't trust manufacturers in the slightest - for the most part they
are in it for the money - not for the well being and health of our kids. I
think many of the products marketed as "safe" have a lot of potentially bad
things in them - BUT - many many people use them and would say they are
fine, and I'm no scientist.
I hope this kind of helps - and that it makes sense.


From: don_tspamme on
Hi, I posted this somewhere else, but the website I use to look up how
safe a baby product is Environmental Working Group - they list all the
chemicals in a product, and which ones cause problems, which are safer
etc. Google them, I believe they are a non-profit group who is an
environmental watchdog kind of organization. I switched from one baby
shampoo to another because of their website. However, when I start
getting worried about all the chemicals in things I think about all
the ones I can't control (i.e. smog, car exhaust etc.). No matter
what, your child is going to be exposed to environmental toxins. Just
the way it is, so don't worry too much about it. If you want to make
educated choices and cut out or reduce the toxins you can, check out
EWG.
From: robgood on
On Nov 15, 8:08 am, "Linda" <r...(a)email.com> wrote:

> apparantly Johnsons No More Tears Baby Shampoo doesn't
> "not hurt" eyes, it just anesthetizes the eyes so they don't feel the sting
> of the soap that is still going straight over their eyes.

It doesn't anesthetize them. If you touch your cornea at the same
time, you'll still feel it. There ARE nonionic surfactants with
detergent properties that DO anesthetize mucous membranes such as the
cornea, but those aren't in baby shampoos. (They're in spermicide and
various detergent products.) The nonionic surfactants in baby
shampoos do, however, counteract the sting of the other ingredients
without actually numbing the eyes as they would be from an opthalmic
exam with anesthetic.

> That wasn't good
> enough for me so I went and found a different product which is just gentle
> and doesn't sting to begin with.

What product is that, and what are its ingredients?

Robert
From: Anne Rogers on
Jamie Clark wrote:
> Yes, you are being paranoid. It's BABY lotion, so it's made for babies.

I don't buy that as an argument, nappies are made for babies, yet they
have chemicals in them (the gel that makes them hold urine, yet be
compact), that have raised genuine concerns about multiple different
problems, to the extent that most countries have banned their use in
tampons. I don't know enough to know whether any of the chemicals in
baby lotions have raised as many concerns, but something being made for
a purpose, doesn't imply safety for that purpose, requirements for
testing are non existant in many product areas, there are things that
are banned from use, such as lead in paint, but not everything that
replaces those kind of things has undergone rigorous long term testing
for each particular use and products being withdrawn from the market
because something is found to be harmful, rather than something known to
be harmful be in the product by error is not unheard of.

Anne
From: Jamie Clark on
There are chemicals everywhere. Even natural or organic products have
chemicals in them. Johnson & Johnson has been making and selling baby
lotion for a long long long time. Generations of families have used it. I
would think that if it wasn't safe, that it would have been noticed by now.

She asked a question, and I gave her MY answer. Yes, I think she is being
paranoid.
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys -- 01/03/03
Addison Grace -- 09/30/04

Check out the family -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clark_Guest1, Password:
guest
Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up your own User ID and
Password

"Anne Rogers" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
news:J7-dnSUrn8IkaqDanZ2dnUVZ_uevnZ2d(a)comcast.com...
> Jamie Clark wrote:
>> Yes, you are being paranoid. It's BABY lotion, so it's made for babies.
>
> I don't buy that as an argument, nappies are made for babies, yet they
> have chemicals in them (the gel that makes them hold urine, yet be
> compact), that have raised genuine concerns about multiple different
> problems, to the extent that most countries have banned their use in
> tampons. I don't know enough to know whether any of the chemicals in baby
> lotions have raised as many concerns, but something being made for a
> purpose, doesn't imply safety for that purpose, requirements for testing
> are non existant in many product areas, there are things that are banned
> from use, such as lead in paint, but not everything that replaces those
> kind of things has undergone rigorous long term testing for each
> particular use and products being withdrawn from the market because
> something is found to be harmful, rather than something known to be
> harmful be in the product by error is not unheard of.
>
> Anne