Science article written by non-science people using non-science sources to back up their claims...hmm
1,4-Dioxane is a Class 2B Carginogen by the EPA meaning that it is a probable carcinogen, becuase it is known to cause cancer in rats, but something to note is that some things that cause cancer in humans don't cause cancer in rats and vice versa. The only place that currently calls it a known carcinogen is a proposition written in California (written by non-scientists and not even passed)....just because you write it in a proposition doesn't mean the science is correct.
Quaternium-15 is a by all accounts a formaldehyde releasing agent and that is it's purpose. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen given exposure of very large dosages. Your body actually makes formaldehyde in several proccesses and reuses it later. By all accounts, formaldehyde is safe to use in very small doses, and that's what quaternium-15 is for; it provides a very slow release of formaldehyde in very small concentrations.
Neither of these chemicals are nearly as bad as they seem.
The part of the article that is even more laughable is:
"Johnson & Johnson clearly can make safer baby shampoo in all the markets around the world, but it's not doing it," said Lisa Archer, director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. "It's clearly a double standard, something they can easily fix."
Changing chemical formulas to remove byproducts of other chemical reactions completely is nearly impossible. The way that their systems are effective uses certain chemicals in specific environments and to change that means completely changing the system and starting over with a new mechanism of cleaning. It's difficult, expensive, and unnecessary.
These people don't understand that ppm concentrations are hard to do already and they are saying any sign is too much.
It's a junk article written by people who don't know enough chemistry to write about them.
The only credible authority that they had simply says
"Even though the chemicals may be low-level, why risk it?" said Tracey J. Woodruff, an associate professor and director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at University of California-San Francisco.
which is perfectly understandable. If you had an easy switch you wouldn't risk it just to be overly cautious. The problem is that their isn't an easy fix, which is pretty obvious and the danger isn't that strong in the first place.
The fact that J&J are even agreeing to change their formula at all says alot.