we use Dr. Bronner's unscented baby magic soap for shampoo and body wash. It's all vegetable based and organic. It's the simpliest formula for baby, even compared to other organic baby soaps/shampoos. Dr. Bronner's has alot of good stuff. It's just they don't have lotion, otherwise, we would use their lotion too.
以下是引用awn在3/16/2009 1:42:00 AM的发言: we use Dr. Bronner's unscented baby magic soap for shampoo and body wash. It's all vegetable based and organic. It's the simpliest formula for baby, even compared to other organic baby soaps/shampoos. Dr. Bronner's has alot of good stuff. It's just they don't have lotion, otherwise, we would use their lotion too.
i used cetaphil. it's not on the list but i think it's only because it's not tested. hard to tell it's 100% safe
ND means no detected, though not safe for guarantee, better than detected ba...
Why “No Detect” Doesn’t Mean No Problem Some products tested for this report did not contain formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane. However, that does not mean the products are safe. There is no guarantee that other samples of the same product are not contaminated. Also, there are no legal requirements for children’s products to be made with the safest ingredients possible. As a result, it is common to find chemicals of concern in brands marketed to children.
Here is an example of a product that did not contain formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane, yet contains other harmful ingredients:
Dark & Lovely Kids Beautiful Beginnings No-Mistake Nourishing No-Lye Creme Relaxer for Fine Hair (by SoftSheen-Carson, owned by L’Oreal USA): Contains at least 55 different ingredients. 98% of those ingredients have no or inadequate safety data. Contains ingredients that are associated with health conditions, including: Methylparaben: On the European Union’s Banned and Restricted List and recognized as having links to cancer, neurotoxicity and skin irritation. Fragrance: Ingredients not required to be listed on product, but can contain harmful chemicals. Triethanolamine: Strong evidence of skin, immune and respiratory toxicity.
http://news.wenxuecity.com/messages/200903/news-gb2312-815201.html
美国一个旨在倡导化妆品安全的非营利组织对美国市场上婴儿洗浴、护肤和化妆品检测后发现,其中过半含有可能致癌物,由此呼吁美国食品和药物管理局完善化妆品安全规范。 多半落马 《华盛顿邮报》13日报道,这个名为“安全化妆品运动”的美国组织共检测了美国市场上48种婴儿洗浴、护肤和化妆品,包括泡泡沐浴露、洗发香波、护肤乳液等。 结果发现,其中32种产品检测出微量对二恶烷,23种产品检测出微量甲醛,17种产品同时含有这两种化学物质。 对二恶烷和甲醛均在美国环境保护署列出的“可能致癌物质”名单中。 此外,多家知名化妆护肤品牌在报道中遭点名。 不
过,“安全化妆品运动”说,这两种化学物质之所以没有在产品外包装印制的成分一栏内列出,是因为它们并非厂商有意加入产品中,而是在生产过程中产生的副产
品。化妆及护肤品中一些成分随着时间推移混合分解后可能产生甲醛;而发泡剂和环氧乙烷等类物质混合时则可能产生对二恶烷。 “我们的目的不是警告家长,”文章援引“安全化妆品运动”发言人斯塔茜·梅尔坎的话报道,“而是提醒家长,一些自称温和、柔顺的产品其实受一些根本没有必要(加入)的物质污染。” 婴儿细嫩的皮肤可能每天都暴露在低含量化学物质中。 厂商反驳 遭点名的婴儿化妆品生产商表示,他们的产品严格遵守相关规定。 “(美国)食品和药物管理局与其他国家的相关机构均认为这些微量(物质)含量属安全范围,”一家美国知名化妆品公司在一份声明中说,“我们所有产品均符合甚至远低于国家制定的含量标准。” 这家化妆品公司还指责“安全化妆品运动”“不准确描述”其婴儿产品安全,“向家长提出不必要警告”。 《华盛顿邮报》报道,欧盟已禁止在护理产品中使用对二恶烷,但美国食品和药物管理局尚未出台针对洗发香波、护肤乳液等护理品中对二恶烷含量的安全标准。 美国一些健康团体担心,政府没有认识到个人护理产品中化学物质对人体的累积影响。 “我们发现的(化学物质含量)水平相对较低,”梅尔坎说,“但问题是,我们在多项产品中发现微量致癌物质,其中多种产品我们每天都在使用,也就是说我们每天都暴露在低含量化学物质中。它们不是最安全和最纯净的产品,家长们需要知道这一点。” 呼吁监管 “安全化妆品运动”呼吁美国食品和药物管理局对洗发水、乳液和化妆用品等设定更严格的安全规定。 此外,这一团体还指出,政府没有对化学物质在婴幼儿身上产生的影响展开相关检测。处于生长阶段的婴幼儿体质较弱,容易受侵害。 美国民主党众议员扬·沙科夫斯基接受《华盛顿邮报》采访时说:“我们每天都在用受致癌物质污染的产品给孩子们洗澡,这说明我们的化妆品安全法是多么过时和落后。科学在进步,美国食品和药物管理局也当跟进。” 来自加利福尼亚州的民主党参议员黛安娜·范斯坦在接受采访时用“恐慌”一词描述这一发现,她表示将提议立法对化妆品行业做出更严格规范。
[此贴子已经被作者于2009-3-15 4:14:50编辑过]
http://safecosmetics.org/article.php?id=426
被点名的牌子有listing吗?
co-ask
然后荧屏底下还打字幕上说美国科学家最近研究发现儿童多洗澡容易造成身体免疫抵抗力下降 ,孩子更容易得病.
现在改用什么啊
1,4-dioxane: 对二恶烷,
Formaldehyde: 甲醛
1,4-dioxane (ppm)
Formaldehyde (ppm)
好像只有burt's bee没上榜?
eucelin,cetaphil的好像叶没有
嗯 ,我今天在台湾的东森新闻也看到了,有JOHNSON什么的.
然后荧屏底下还打字幕上说美国科学家最近研究发现儿童多洗澡容易造成身体免疫抵抗力下降 ,孩子更容易得病.
是么?幸好我是个懒妈妈,本来内疚的不行啊,可是一个人很难顺利给孩子洗澡。。。
burtee bee的号称就是天然的,可以吃的
就是太香了,每次给孩子用了都很想咬她一口....
恩,说实话,那个香味让我没有办法相信是全天然的
恩,说实话,那个香味让我没有办法相信是全天然的
不过我还是用了它
FT,Kirkland的baby wipes也上榜了。我们一直用这个还有Pampers的。
单子上没有的,但是同一个公司的,应该还能用的吧
比如pampers ,huggies的其他wipes ?
好像只有burt's bee没上榜?
很多ORGANIC都没有上榜啊
比如EARTH'S BEST啊, CALIFORNIA BABY啊..........WELDA啊..........
那平常使用的diaper呢?
单子上没有的,但是同一个公司的,应该还能用的吧
co-ask
does ND* mean it is safe?
我猜是not detected。 我理解这是一个抽样检查,11楼的是完整报告,所以没有在列的应该是没有被抽到。
我猜是not detected。 我理解这是一个抽样检查,11楼的是完整报告,所以没有在列的应该是没有被抽到。
thanks mm.....in this case, nd is safer than the one not listed on the list....
FT,Kirkland的baby wipes也上榜了。我们一直用这个还有Pampers的。
it's ND, so i guess it's safe
其实美国人从小到大,生了那么多代孩子,好像也没听说谁家的孩子用了真就得ai了
[此贴子已经被作者于2009-3-16 2:34:35编辑过]
哎,看来啥都是清水最安全
可是organic的宝宝用品哪里有卖阿?我们这小地方没看到过啊
thanks mm.....in this case, nd is safer than the one not listed on the list....
对啊,ND应该还比较safe。那些organic的一抽查说不定也有问题。
还好我们都用清水洗澡。洗头用加州宝贝。
和我们一样。伺候湿疹宝宝养成的习惯。
啊?这可如何是好啊?是不是不该每天洗澡啊?还是就用清水洗算了?
that's what I am doing everyday!
刚看到一篇张丽卿的文章,就是关于这个的,我觉得说得有道理,不必太惊慌:
http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/cos-topic/article?mid=7274&prev=7305&next=7264
她写过很多类似的文章,基本上都是说,如果厂商被逼不用这些所谓“致癌”成分的话,选用的替代品并不一定就安全,反而往往会是没有经过足够检验和测试的成分,只不过消费者不认识,以为没被曝出不安全的就是安全成分,但其实很可能更加不安全。
清水, 偶尔用DOVE香皂.
Us, too. And this is what our ped recommend.
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/1/5 16:24:08编辑过]
we use Dr. Bronner's unscented baby magic soap for shampoo and body wash. It's all vegetable based and organic. It's the simpliest formula for baby, even compared to other organic baby soaps/shampoos. Dr. Bronner's has alot of good stuff. It's just they don't have lotion, otherwise, we would use their lotion too.
re, 建议妈妈都看看这个产品。
eucelin,cetaphil的好像叶没有
嗯。
我们洗澡用burt's bee,lotion用cetaphil。还好,都不在上面。
trash all aveeno creamy wash
[此贴子已经被作者于2010/1/6 15:38:41编辑过]
我得出发去买点别的了,正好还要买点防晒霜。
baby california到哪里买? 店里好象没有. drugstore网上有, 可要shipping$. 我买够了$25却说item不算qualify for free shipping里面, 还要shipping$.
昨天有个帖子里说靶子店有的。
eucelin,cetaphil的好像叶没有
they are not considered baby products
it's not on the list but i think it's only because it's not tested. hard to tell it's 100% safe
ND means no detected, though not safe for guarantee, better than detected ba...
Why “No Detect” Doesn’t Mean No Problem
Some products tested for this report did not contain formaldehyde
or 1,4-dioxane. However, that does not mean the products are safe. There
is no guarantee that other samples of the same product are not
contaminated. Also, there are no legal requirements for children’s
products to be made with the safest ingredients possible. As a result,
it is common to find chemicals of concern in brands marketed to
children.
Here is an example of a product that did not contain
formaldehyde or 1,4-dioxane, yet contains other harmful ingredients:
Dark
& Lovely Kids Beautiful Beginnings No-Mistake Nourishing No-Lye
Creme Relaxer for Fine Hair (by SoftSheen-Carson,
owned by L’Oreal USA):
Contains at least 55 different ingredients. 98% of those ingredients have no or inadequate safety data. Contains ingredients that are associated with health conditions,
including: Methylparaben: On the European Union’s Banned and Restricted
List and recognized as having links to cancer, neurotoxicity and skin
irritation. Fragrance: Ingredients not required to be listed on product,
but can contain harmful chemicals. Triethanolamine: Strong evidence of skin, immune and
respiratory toxicity.
太可怕了,那用啥保险呢?大家都用啥牌子的?
california baby, burt's bee
baby california到哪里买? 店里好象没有. drugstore网上有, 可要shipping$. 我买够了$25却说item不算qualify for free shipping里面, 还要shipping$.
california baby 在whole food,walmart,target都有。whole food最全。
baby california到哪里买? 店里好象没有. drugstore网上有, 可要shipping$. 我买够了$25却说item不算qualify for free shipping里面, 还要shipping$.
target 有
shocked
很多ORGANIC都没有上榜啊
比如EARTH'S BEST啊, CALIFORNIA BABY啊..........WELDA啊..........
刚看到一篇张丽卿的文章,就是关于这个的,我觉得说得有道理,不必太惊慌:
http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/cos-topic/article?mid=7274&prev=7305&next=7264
她写过很多类似的文章,基本上都是说,如果厂商被逼不用这些所谓“致癌”成分的话,选用的替代品并不一定就安全,反而往往会是没有经过足够检验和测试的成分,只不过消费者不认识,以为没被曝出不安全的就是安全成分,但其实很可能更加不安全。
哈吉斯邦宝士最常用的wipes也都在上面,以后只能每次洗屁股了。
pampers是nd,没法下结论吧
以下是引用carbontt在10/30/2011 10:46:00 PM的发言:
我一直给孩子用weleda,洗发沐浴二合一和牙膏。amazon和diapers上都有
看成洗发沐浴 和 牙膏的二和一,心说这产品太强大拉,以后可以边洗澡边刷牙
好像只有burt's bee没上榜?
还有cababy,weleda
http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/