Questions concerning J & J Baby Milk Lotion

I couln’t find any refernce to J&J Baby Milk Lotion being classed as a corticosteroid. Is it one? Given the backlash against J&J’s use of cancer-causing formaldehyde and talc in their lotions (in 2016 there was a report stating that J&J would reformulate its baby lotions) have they reformulated these lotions yet?

Apparently formadehyde does not cause cancer. That was a popular belief several years ago. But my question regarding J&J Baby Milk Lotion being classed as a corticosteroid still stands.

This appears to be J&J’s web page for their baby skin care/lotion products. I see no sign of the product you mention, though I can find it at Amazon (but only small bottles). Maybe it’s been discontinued?

Yes I’m referring to the small bottles you saw on Amazon. If they have been discontinued I’d like to know when?

Are these types of lotions classed as corticosteroids?

I have no idea; I just did 2 minutes of googling. Without an actual ingredient list, I’d have no idea if it’s a corticosteroid or not.

Here’s a list I found when I googled, though I can’t vouch for it. (It seems most places have moved to the Baby Milk and Rice lotion instead.)

I would not expect that it has a steroid in it. But I don’t know if that means all the ingredients are safe.

Thanks BigT. I would like to know from anyone in the know if any of the ingredients listed are considered unsafe ?

Quite a few of them are. The main ingredient is responsible for over 3900 deaths a year in the US alone due to respiratory arrest. The second and third are also asphyxiants. Mineral oil causes diarrhea and pneumonitis. Milk protein caused 17 pediatric deaths in the UK from 1998-2018. Sodium hydroxide - lye - is caustic to all tissues. Parabens are listed as potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Carbomers are the main non-aqueous component of spermicidal gel. Etc.

The safest possible course of action would be to double-bag the material and dispose of it in accordance with local ordinances.

Moderator Note

Water, despite causing over 3900 drowning deaths per year in the US, is generally not considered an unsafe ingredient, except of course in dihydrogen monoxide (dhmo) parodies.

@Octagon asked a factual question about the safety of these ingredients. Do not reply with parody answers in this forum until after the factual question has been addressed.

Why would it think it was? Can you cite any corticosteroid ingredients?

Formaldehyde is considered carcinogenic in sufficiently high amounts. There’s recent evidence that low-dose formaldehyde does not pose a cancer risk for humans. And our bodies continually make and break down formaldehyde in small amounts.

“Formaldehyde and other chemicals that release formaldehyde are sometimes used in low concentrations in cosmetics and other personal care products like lotions, shampoo, conditioner, shower gel, and some fingernail polishes. These may raise the concentration of formaldehyde in the air inside the room for a short time, but the levels reached are far below what is considered to be hazardous.”

There’s no consensus that talc is carcinogenic. Talc contaminated with asbestos is another story.

Most talc is probably contaminated with asbestos, though. They are apparently formed under similar conditions.

But to the op: none of those ingredients look like a steroid to me. And why would you think there’s a steroid in the stuff?

Recent testing has shown talc-containing cosmetics to be negative for asbestos.

So apparently you can buy Aubergine Matte & Shimmer Eyeshadow at 7-11 with confidence. :stuck_out_tongue:

None of these are corticosteroids. Maybe there was a formulation in the past that did? (Although I wouldn’t recommend using any kind of steroids on a baby, or very young child, without a prescription or at least a doctor’s recommendation.)

Most of the ingredients are thickening agents, coloring agents, and also agents to create a stable pH.

Thanks nearwildheaven.