Natural Good Baby Diaper Cream

Diggin’ the retro packaging and MOST of the ingredients, but don’t agree with this statement:

“The cream has no parabens or synthetic chemicals, among other bad stuff.”

Correct, no parabens – but all the other preservatives in this product are indeed synthetic chemicals, I would personally consider them “bad stuff” and I wouldn’t be slathering this on my baby’s bum or any part of my own body – that is fo sho.

Let’s take a look, shall we?!

Diazolidnyl Urea: Has the potential to release formaldehyde (a carcinogen) and can cause contact dermatitis, a known skin and immune system toxin, at least one study has shown it to show “positive mutation effects.” In other words, it created cancer in studies, studies have shown endocrine disruption, brain and nervous system effects at high doses. Has also been shown to effect metabolism in high doses. Cannot be derived from a vegetable source. Either synthetically produced or extracted from animal urine or other bodily fluids.

Iodopropynl Butylcarbamate: Used for years as a fungicide and bactericide for wood and paint preservation and just in the last few year used in cosmetics and is known to cause dermal irritation. The European Union restricts the use of this preservative and asserts it should not be used in large areas on the body such as body lotion and it should not be used on children younger than 3 years old.

Disodium EDTA: This chemical was created in 1935 when a scientist made it from ethylenediamine and chloroacetic acid. Today, EDTA is mostly made of ethylenediamine, formaldehyde, and sodium cyanide. Oral exposures have been noted to cause reproductive and developmental effects (so what happens when we rub this on our skin or our baby’s ???).

Propylene Glycol: Cancer risk, reproductive toxicity, usage restrictions, allergies and immune system toxicity, skin and eye irritations, organ system toxicity, endocrine disruption, and neurotoxicity. It also is a penetration enhancer, meaning it penetrates skin cells, getting right into the bloodstream, carrying other chemicals with it. Also the main ingredient in anti-freeze, brake fluid, de-icer, etc.

Two of these are on the Organic Consumers Associations Ten Synthetic Cosmetic Chemicals To Avoid: http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/toxic_cosmetics.cfm

This seems like a cool company, so I definitely hope they will consider reformulating their products and leave these ingredients in the dust. There are many natural and/or organic diaper creams out there that don’t use these ingredients and after all, why should we settle for anything but the absolute best for our children???

fig+sage’s last blog post..35% Off Saaf Organic Pure Face Cleanser Featured In Lucky Mag + Founder Named Top Entrepreneur In Britain

[Reply]

Hi Sommer

I’m definitely with you about the Kid-Safe Chemical Act. No parent should need a chemist degree to read ingredients, but conscious- consumers have learned (or are learning) to do this in order to ensure they are using safe and/or natural products on themselves and their children (like muah – I don’t have a chemist degree – just a self-educated label-reader ). Yes, this is indeed safer than conventional diaper cream any day but personally, I wouldn’t want even “potentially harmful” ingredients on my child.

I suppose some of this may depend on how you view the Safe Cosmetic Database. Some believe it is an “ingredient bible”, the end-all-be-all and though it is a great resource, it is not perfect. Suki Kramer (founder of Suki skin care products) wrote this about the EWG database after she was shocked to find her natural and organic skin care slapped with a less than desirable rating:

“The EWG / Skindeep’s rating system does not differentiate between a botanical extract that is clean (meaning does not contain parabens, propylene glycol, or is extracted with the highly toxic hexane or any other means.) In fact people doing the rating didn’t even know when I spoke with them that ingredients can be hidden in extracts, or between regular lecithin and the lecithin we use (non-gmo, organic, food grade). There is no way to enter such a differentiation when you as a manufacturer go to enter your ingredients in the database. They do not make a distinction between organics, naturals in many cases, and/or regular, synthetic ingredients, not to mention cosmetic-grade and food-grade, nor do they care whether you use an ingredient at 100%, at 1%, or at .01% within your formulas. You get the same rating no matter how much of an ingredient you use.”

These are also very good reads about flaws in the database:

http://www.scienceforsale.com/2008/08/problem-with-ewgs-skin-deep-safe.html

http://bubbleandbee.blogspot.com/2008/07/navigating-ewg-skin-deep-database.html

It’s apparent we’ve got to fend for ourselves (unfortunately).

There are other natural baby care brands that don’t include harmful, or (for the sake of fairness) “potentially harmful” ingredients. Companies who stake a claim in the natural realm need to be prepared to answer parents who are going to question ingredients like this in their product.

Again, I really like the packaging and the majority of the ingredients but I truly hope reformulation is on the horizon for them – it can only be a positive thing for all

fig+sage’s last blog post..Green On A Budget: Dr. Bronner’s Organic + Fair Trade Certified Lemongrass Lime Body Soap {Review}

[Reply]