Furthermore, they state with confidence that parents (especially tree huggers on a budget) always have the choice to use their Johnson’s Natural range, where the trademarked phrase "98% Natural" immediately jumps out at you. If you look a little closer, you see that this actually means that the products contain 98% “naturally derived” ingredients. This is not the same as "natural'". This range is priced inexpensively compared when compared with “boutique” natural baby brands.
By the way, these product labels still state the warning “keep out of reach of children.” They also contain “fragrance”, which they say is plant-sourced. If that was completely true then they would be required to state the plants’ botanical names and whether it is an extract, essential oil, what have you. The term “fragrance” can really mean anything at all and at this time, manufacturers are not required to state what chemicals comprise these “fragrances”.
Since they offer this naturally-derived product range and are now phasing out all products with quaternium-15 and 1,4 dioxane since consumers have demanded it; that relieves them of all responsibility and accountability, right? I don’t think so.
The majority of the products under the Johnson & Johnson umbrella (including those labeled for use on sensitive skin or skin prone to irritant reactions) contain several other chemical ingredients that are known toxins, potential carcinogens, and are known to cause contact dermatitis and other allergic and irritant skin reactions. Just check out their product listings on the EWG’s Skin Deep Cosmetics Safety Database. You’ll see.
So, while it’s great that they are removing two of these ingredients from all products, what will they do about the rest of them? What about the PEGs, sulfates, synthetic fragrances, parabens, petrochemicals like propylene glycol, and toxic silicones that these products still contain? And for the record, you can’t just take out a preservative in a mass-produced commercial product and not replace it with something equal in microorganism-killing strength.
Article comments