Spy vs. Spy

I was amused to read of the dust-up between the makers of Splenda (MacNeil Nutritionals, a division of Johnson & Johnson) and the sugar industry. It is rare in the world of bought science that industry clashes with industry, wielding the same tool used against disinterested research. But apparently the sugar industry has hit upon a brilliant idea. It hired Duke University researchers to study the impact of Splenda on obesity levels. The sugar industry hates Splenda with all of its collective might because Splenda burst onto the market saying "Tastes like sugar because it's made from sugar," which is not true. Nevertheless, it has been a raging success and the sugar industry has taken a huge hit as a result. Litigation followed, which led to a private settlement and Splenda ceasing to use that tag line. (Now the company uses the rather uninspiring and kindergarten-like: "It’s made from sugar. It tastes like sugar. But it’s not sugar.”) Anyway, not to anyone's great surprise, the Duke researchers whom the sugar industry had paid found that yes, Splenda did in fact cause people to get fat and interfered with intenstinal absorption, etc., etc. Now MacNeil/Johnson & Johnson are up in arms.

While it sucks to see yet another bought scientific study hit the light of day, I couldn't help but find it very funny to see two industry titans go at it in this way, and to see a company fight off questionable science that affects the viability of the product. Perhaps industry has found such tactics so successful in its ongoing battle with regulators that it has decided to put it to use against competitors. Anyway, below is the article from the New York Times about the Splenda kerfuffle, with a headline that is a triumph of alliteration.

New Salvo in Spenda Skirmish.

On a related topic: political and industry interference in science and research is nothing new, but interference and obstruction has been made easier in the last eight years by an administration that, like its partners in industry, believes science is malleable and can be a considerably powerful political tool. Sometimes it is hard to keep up with. The Union of Concerned Scientists has put together a periodic table-esque compendium of abuses of science by industry, government agencies, and politicians. To say I was geeked out when I first saw it would be a vast understatement. It is a clever approach to a really insidious problem, and don't be surprised if you while away an hour reading episode after Orwellian episode.

Op/Ed on the FDA's decision on BPA published on Alternet.org

Hi,
Just a little shameless self-promotion this morning. Alternet, one of my favorite sources for news, published my op/ed on the FDA's announcement about BPA.

"FDA Says Chemical with Links to Reproductive Problems is Safe for Humans"

From the BPA Files: Why You Should Never Take a Corporation's Word For It

I received an e-mail today from my friends at The Soft Landing, a company that aims to sell BPA, phthalate, and paraben-free baby and toddler products. The company confirms with the companies themselves whether or not their products contain BPA, phthalates, parabens, and so on (an approach I think is problematic, if well-intentioned, but more on that later). Sassy initially gave The Soft Landing a list of its products that it claimed was BPA-free. The Soft Landing began selling these items. And now they have just learned that Sassy gave them incorrect information. Here is the list of products that in fact contain BPA:

Extra Gentle Soft Tip Spoon - BPA in handle
EZ Grip Feeding Bowl and Color Change Spoon - BPA in spoon
Snack Time Infa-Trainer Cup - BPA in cap over straw
Flexi Grip Toddler Fork and Spoon
Color Change Fork and Spoon

I can't imagine how upset and disappointed the folks at The Soft Landing are right now. To be told, point blank, that specific products are sans BPA and then to find that this information was wrong, especially when your life's work is to provide parents with safe alternatives, must be devastating.

That being said, I think it is a mistake to rely on corporations to provide component information for products that might contain BPA, phthalates, or parabens. I think it's a mistake because inevitably the people you speak to about these matters are customer service representatives or employees in administration who are unclear about the chemical makeup of the product list, and, in some cases, the ingredients are considered a trade secret. More, because the concern about the Big Three (BPA, phthalates, parabens) is relatively new, information from companies regarding them is sketchy or completely wrong, as we saw with the Sassy products. Further along the line, of course, is intentional obfuscation. It doesn't sound as if this is the case in the Sassy situation, however.

But I can't say that I am totally surprised this happened to the people at The Soft Landing. With good hearts and the right idea, they approached Sassy thinking that if they went to the source, they'd get the most reliable information. This approach was one that had always troubled me a bit, and I was afraid this would happen at some point. But The Soft Landing has yanked these products off the shelves and has ramped up its vigilance. They won't get the recall they've asked for because there is nothing to recall. As I said, I have not seen the product labeled as BPA-free, though I have seen other online retailers selling it as BPA-free. (Note: if you can, take the time to e-mail these other retailers to let them know about this situation. I've done that at Babyearth.com for the Flexigrip Toddler Spoon.) Since BPA is still legal, there are no grounds for a recall.

What does a company like The Soft Landing do, then? Hire a toxicologist to test all products before they go on sale? I wish. (I wish I had my own household toxicologist!) What I think is the best step is perhaps a drastic one. I have never seen the aforemetioned Sassy products advertised as BPA-free. I've studied the packaging of all Sassy eating products at Babies R'Us and other outlets, and I have never seen a claim like this. Whenever I see plastic containers or utensils designed for children that are not labeled BPA-free, especially in the current climate, I assume they contain the chemical. Fair or not, I don't really care. It's just a way I hedge my bets. I never bought Sassy products because I was never really sure they were, in fact, BPA-free, even when I saw them on The Soft Landing (knowing that the company relied on corporate information to deem the products safe). When companies package their products and label them BPA-free, they damn sure better BPA-free, because there are serious legal repercussions for false labeling. There is no repercussion for Sassy telling a small retailer that its product is BPA-free, and then turning around and saying it, in fact, does contain the chemical. We have to make the repercussion happen, which is by forwarding The Soft Landing e-mail, reproduced below, to our friends, and choosing not to buy Sassy products until those products are reliably BPA-free.

In the meantime, if you want to rest a little easier about this whole BPA thing, choose products from companies that nev'er used BPA in the first place or whose products are clearly labeled "BPA-Free. The Soft Landing offers a wide variety of BPA-free baby bottles from companies that started out as niche manufacturers of BPA-free products. Boon is another excellent niche company that produces BPA-free sippy cups, utensils, and other eating tools.

As for myself, I almost never take a corporation's word for it. Ever. I've just had too many experiences in my journalistic career like The Soft Landing's to be comfortable with a corporation's last word.

UPDATED NOTE: In fact, I must have bought a Sassy utensil at some point because I found a color change toddler fork and spoon amongst my son's belongings (he prefers eating with adult silverware). I felt bad for about three minutes, until I reminded myself of what I tell parents who e-mail me and tell me they are pulling their hair out because they used BPA-containing bottles before they knew of the whole BPA issue: we can't do everything. We do the best we can with the knowledge we have at the time. So the Sassy spoons are now in the garbage.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT SASSY FEEDING PRODUCTS

Two days ago, we at The Soft Landing were surprised and disappointed to learn that several baby feeding products manufactured by Sassy may contain BPA. Upon receiving the first information of a possible problem, we immediately suspended sales of all Sassy products on our website while we investigated. Sassy has now confirmed that they had been wrong when they previously assured us – through their Quality Control department, in whom we had developed trust as a reliable source for such information – that these products were BPA-free.

We want you to know the facts as soon as we do. Here is what Sassy has told us. The following products, made by Sassy, do contain BPA:

Extra Gentle Soft Tip Spoon - BPA in handle
EZ Grip Feeding Bowl and Color Change Spoon - BPA in spoon
Snack Time Infa-Trainer Cup - BPA in cap over straw
Flexi Grip Toddler Fork and Spoon
Color Change Fork and Spoon

We have sold these products through our website. Some were sold individually, and some were sold in packages with other products. Please know we are very disappointed to have received this information from Sassy. We are insisting that Sassy provide us with an explanation for why their initial assurances about these products were wrong, and, if we are not confident in the reliability of Sassy’s information from this point forward, we will not offer their products.

We have encouraged Sassy to conduct a manufacturer’s recall of these products. We do not yet know if they will do that. In the meantime, and regardless of what Sassy decides we at the Soft Landing will gladly make exchanges or issue store credits for any of our customers who bought these products from us. If you bought any of the above products from us, all you need to do is contact us at sassyrecall [at] thesoftlanding.com. We will be glad to help you and try to answer any questions that you may have.

FDA Uses Bought Science, Declares BPA Safe

Just time for a brief post right now, but I wanted to make sure I noted that the FDA, as expected, has offically rendered a "not guilty" verdict for BPA. Utilizing industry science, the FDA tells us to drink up, even as the AMA issued new research on the dangers of BPA. Regardless of which presidential candidate you support, it is imperative that he shake up the FDA or dismantle it and rebuild it. A letter would go a long way toward this goal.

In the meantime, retailers have listened to consumer demand, and numerous companies are selling BPA-free bottles and sippy cups. A visit to my local Babies R' Us was enlightening; its shelves are chock full of BPA-free offerings for baby bottles, toddler utensils and dishes, and sippy cups, and each time I go there, they look as if they are about to run out. Don't rely on the FDA to protect you (advice I've been giving for a long time for any number of products). There's no reason to buy bottles with BPA, as the ubiquity of BPA-free offerings has resulted in a dramatically lower price point. Here is a short list of companies that now offer BPA-free bottles:

Born Free Bottles
Green to Grow Bottles
Adiri Nursers
Phillips Avent's new BPA-free bottles (on Amazon)
Dr. Brown's Polypropylene BPA-Free Bottles (on Amazon)
ThinkBaby Bottles
NuturePure Glass Bottles
Sassy BPA-Free Bottles (on Soft Landing)

This is just a short list. It's remarkable to see how the market has responded. Who hasn't had reservations about capitalism from time to time? But seeing the way the market has responded has strengthened my faith in free markets. Seeing the way parents and other consumers have responded to the BPA problem, though, has been nothing short of amazing to me. Despite the FDA's incompetence and utter failure to do what it has been charged to do (protect the public), intelligent consumers have said no to BPA. If we continue to buy BPA-free offerings, it won't be long before this chemical is out of baby bottles entirely, because there are simply no takers. Let's rush headlong to that point!

Much more on this later in the day. For now, here is the AP story.

WASHINGTON - Federal regulators on Tuesday defended their assessment that a chemical widely used in plastic baby bottles and in food packaging is safe, even as the first major study of health effects in people linked it with possible risks for heart disease and diabetes.

ADVERTISEMENT


"A margin of safety exists that is adequate to protect consumers, including infants and children, at the current levels of exposure," Laura Tarantino, a senior Food and Drug Administration scientist, told an expert panel that has been asked for a second opinion on the agency's assessment of bisphenol A or BPA.

However, a study released Tuesday by the Journal of the American Medical Association suggested a new concern about BPA. Because of the possible public health implications, the results "deserve scientific follow-up," the study authors said. Using a health survey of nearly 1,500 adults, they found that those exposed to higher amounts of BPA were more likely to report having heart disease and diabetes.

But the study is preliminary, far from proof that the chemical caused the health problems. Two Dartmouth College analysts of medical research said it raises questions but provides no answers about whether the ubiquitous chemical is harmful.

FDA officials said they are not dismissing such findings, and conceded that further research is needed. "We recognize the need to resolve the concerning questions that have been raised," said Tarantino. But the FDA is arguing that the studies with rats and mice it relied on for its assessment are more thorough than some of the human research that has raised doubts.

The JAMA article was released to coincide with the FDA scientific advisers' hearing.

The FDA has the power to limit use of BPA in food containers and medical devices but last month released its internal report concluding that BPA exposure is not enough to warrant action.

Since then, another government agency released a separate report concluding that risks to people, in particular to infants and children, cannot be ruled out.

Past animal studies have suggested reproductive and hormone-related problems from BPA. The JAMA study is the largest to examine possible BPA effects in people and the first suggesting a direct link to heart disease, said scientists Frederick vom Saal and John Peterson Myers, both longtime critics of the chemical.

Still, they said more rigorous studies are needed to confirm the results.

Vom Saal is a biological sciences professor at University of Missouri who has served as an expert witness and consultant on BPA litigation. Myers is chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, a Charlottesville, Va., nonprofit group. They wrote an editorial accompanying the JAMA study.

BPA is used in hardened plastics in a wide range of consumer goods including food containers, eyeglass lenses and compact discs. Many scientists believe it can act like the hormone estrogen, and animal studies have linked it with breast, prostate and reproductive system problems and some cancers.

Researchers from Britain and the University of Iowa examined a U.S. government health survey of 1,455 American adults who gave urine samples in 2003-04 and reported whether they had any of several common diseases.

Participants were divided into four groups based on BPA urine amounts; more than 90 percent had detectable BPA in their urine.

A total of 79 had heart attacks, chest pain or other types of cardiovascular disease and 136 had diabetes. There were more than twice as many people with heart disease or diabetes in the highest BPA group than in the lowest BPA group. The study showed no connection between BPA and other ailments, including cancer.

No one in the study had BPA urine amounts showing higher than recommended exposure levels, said co-author Dr. David Melzer, a University of Exeter researcher.

Drs. Lisa Schwartz and Steven Woloshin of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice said the study presents no clear information about what might have caused participants' heart disease and diabetes.

"Measuring who has disease and high BPA levels at a single point in time cannot tell you which comes first," Schwartz said.

The study authors acknowledge that it's impossible to rule out that people who already have heart disease or diabetes are somehow more vulnerable to having BPA show up in their urine.

The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said the study is flawed, has substantial limitations and proves nothing.

But Dr. Ana Soto of Tufts University said the study raises enough concerns to warrant government action to limit BPA exposure.

"We shouldn't wait until further studies are done in order to act in protecting humans," said Soto, who has called for more restrictions in the past.

An earlier lab experiment with human fat tissue found that BPA can interfere with a hormone involved in protecting against diabetes, heart disease and obesity. That study appeared online last month in Environmental Health Perspectives, a monthly journal published by the National Institutes of Health.

Government toxicology experts have also studied BPA and recently completed their own report based on earlier animal studies. They found no strong evidence of health hazards from BPA, but said there was "some concern" about possible effects on the brain in fetuses, infants and children.

Several states are considering restricting BPA use, some manufacturers have begun promoting BPA-free baby bottles, and some stores are phasing out baby products containing the chemical. The European Union has said that BPA-containing products are safe, but Canada's government has proposed banning the sale of baby bottles with BPA as a precaution

An unsolicited explanation from Carter's and my response

Today I received an unsolicited e-mail from Carter's Senior Director for Consumer Affairs, Janell Cleveland, responding to my posting here about Carter's tagless onesies and two comments I've made on other blogs regarding this matter. It was a form letter, of course, but I found it interesting. I do not think there is some big industrial-complex at work here, poisoning infants with phthalate-laden clothing. I don't think anyone has suggested as much. But there is a problem, and it is not an isolated one, with a large chunk of Carter's (and possibly other companies') tagless onesies. The e-mail from Cleveland reads, in part:

Since this issue came to our attention, we have contacted the label manufacturer to further review the manufacturing process, and we are conducting further testing and have engaged experts to determine the source of the skin reactions, which we currently believe to be a rare allergic reaction. Because of design trends, the features and appearance of our labels change frequently. In fact, before receiving any of the recent complaints, these labels underwent further design and feature changes for our new product season.

I take issue with Cleveland's assertion that this is a "rare allergic reaction." People have rare allergic reactions to all kinds of everyday things: mint, latex, polyester, etc. But these things are clearly labeled, and consumers can avoid them. Undisclosed ingredients or components are a different problem entirely, and phthalates, if indeed this is what is causing the reaction, is extremely problematic whether the effect is immediately apparent or only apparent after repeated exposure. Parents have a right to avoid phthalates, which is why products containing them should be clearly labeled. To write off a major problem with a product as affecting only a small number of people, as a "rare allergic reaction", and thereby rendering it unimportant is a grave tactical error. Incidentally, I do not believe this is a rare allergic reaction. Since this story broke, the blogosphere has been flooded with accounts from parents about allergic reactions to tagless onesies.

My son has worn tagless onesies, though I am not sure if he wore any onesies from the Carter's '07 fall line, which is the line we're hearing is responsible for these reactions. He has not had the kind of skin reaction we've been seeing in the last few days. However, visible reaction on the skin or not, I do not want my son's skin to be in direct contact with phthalates, formaldehyde, or, if possible, any chemical that can leach into the skin or create contact dermititis. And clearly, Carter's is having this problem. This may not be a problem originating within Carter's; it may be a third-party contractor, a factory in China, etc. But how Carter's handles it from this point on will determine, in the eyes of many, many parents, what kind of company Carter's is, and if that company can be trusted. I give Carter's the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. But by dismissing this situation as "rare allergic reactions" as they test the products (dismissing it before their tests are complete) instead they are beginning to prove otherwise.

This is an issue that has been ongoing since earlier this year. One parent wrote on the Green Living blog post on tagless clothing:

I am so relieved to hear other people having the same problems with tagless clothes! My son started having severe reactions to his tagless clothes at 4 months of age (he is now 6 months). His back will turn very red and start oozing right where the "stamp" is in the back of his clothes . . . the rash will appear as the exact size and shape of the stamp. The redness will then spread out from there. I have seen a number of pediatricians who confirmed it is an allergic reaction, we just don't know what material in the stamp is causing the reaction. My son has the most severe reaction to the Carter's brand tagless clothing. I have searched online and seen pictures of other babies with this reaction, and those pictures look like the same reaction my son had. I urge everyone who has experienced this to take pictures and send them to the clothing companies. There is obviously something very irritating about the tagless clothing, and I think the clothing companies should certainly do something about this!

POSTED BY KCW :: TEXAS USA :: 03/09/2008 6:58 PM

The complaints are markedly uniform and the accounts grow more numerous each day. We are not seeing rare exceptions here. We are seeing a growing and serious problem.

Below is the text of the letter I received from Carter's Director of Consumer Affairs. I will post my response as soon as I send it. Below the letter is a selection fo comments from Zrecommends...added because this skin reaction is so rare.

Ashley-

We recently came across your blog post and online comments regarding Carter’s products and wanted to address some of your questions.

Carter’s is aware of several reports from consumers whose children have experienced skin reactions while wearing apparel products containing heat-transferred, or “tag less,” labels. Some of these products have been identified as Carter's products. We want to assure our customers that we take this matter seriously and are doing everything we can to ensure their continued confidence in and satisfaction with our products.

Carter’s has used different types of heat transferred labels for many years on hundreds of millions of products. Our experience with these labels is that they are safe and that any skin reaction is extremely rare. Regardless, we take our quality control very seriously and carefully review all consumer concerns. Prior to being used in our products, these labels passed third-party testing for all applicable safety standards.

Carter’s has used different types of heat transferred labels for many years on hundreds of millions of products. Our experience with these labels is that they are safe and that any skin reaction is extremely rare. Regardless, we take our quality control very seriously and carefully review all consumer concerns. Prior to being used in our products, these labels passed third-party testing for all applicable safety standards.

Since this issue came to our attention, we have contacted the label manufacturer to further review the manufacturing process, and we are conducting further testing and have engaged experts to determine the source of the skin reactions, which we currently believe to be a rare allergic reaction. Because of design trends, the features and appearance of our labels change frequently. In fact, before receiving any of the recent complaints, these labels underwent further design and feature changes for our new product season.

Our customer’s feedback is always important to us and we encourage anyone with questions or comments to contact us at 1-888-782-9548.

Sincerely,

Janell Cleveland
Senior Director, Consumer Affairs

Comments from Zrecommend's post on Carter's Tagless Onesies causing rashes and skin reactions:

Laura said...
Wow! I could not for the life of me figure out what the little rash on the back of my toddlers neck was. It didn't look as bad as the picture you posted and it is pretty much healed up. I will try to take a picture and send it in. Thank you!!

9:49 AM


Andrea Reynolds said...
Ditto on Laura's comment. Almost ALL of my little one's clothes are of the tagless variety. And she continually had this rash where the tag is. Every doctor visit declared that she just had isolated eczema. Now that she's older, she's been wearing some other clothes (with tags) and the rash is gone. Until now, just thought the rash was a passing thing. If it happens again, I'll now know where the culprit is!! Thanks for clearing up a very perplexing mystery!!! But how irritating (no pun intended) that the clothes we bought our kids to be more comfortable in are exactly what is making them MORE uncomfortable!! Agggggg!

10:09 AM


Jeremiah McNichols said...
@Andrea - How long ago are we talking? We're trying to figure out if this really is a "new" issue or if it's been an issue for years that no one has been able to isolate. So any dates (purchase, use) are helpful.

10:12 AM


wfcook said...
One commenter at the blog with the pictures says she was told by Carters that the problem was isolated to the Fall 2007 line. I am seriously hoping that Zrecs can get some answers from these companies about this issue. It will affect our future clothing purchases, that's for sure.

One possibility is that an isolated run of clothing was prone to causing allergic reactions, but that the tags in general have been causing milder eczema all along.

Is pthalate a serious concern on a rear label, where it is unlikely to be ingested? The question comes from simple ignorance of the issue...

10:46 AM


Laura said...
Well the rash is gone. We have lots clothes from this year and last year lines. My son just got over his rash 2 weeks ago. So I am thinking it is from the clothes we bought this summer and last spring/winter. We have carters from this fall line that he has been wearing and he is fine. I will take some pictures of the stuff he was wearing all summer when he had the rash.

11:29 AM


Courtney said...
my daughter hasn't had anything like the picture above. The only think I have noticed she she itches that area of her neck over and over again till it bleeds at night. I am not sure if she just does it for comfort or if the tagless stuff is irratiting her.

12:34 PM


red sun said...
I am shocked! and appalled! that this may be the culprit of my daughter's persistent rash. I was also told by her pedi that the rash was just an isolated incident, and to just apply hydrocortisone/petroletum to clear it up. It's gotten significantly better than it was, so I'll have to monitor whether it was the clothes that were bothering her, or if the skin treatments have been helping. I'm bringing her to an allergist because of this! To think that she might not have to go through all the allergy testing is infuriating!
I bought my clothes for my now 7 month daughter during fall 2007, winter 2007 and a few things in spring 2008. In the beginning, we purchased mostly Carters clothing, but now we buy more Gap (tagless) and miscellaneous vendors (tagless or tags). I wonder if the her rash is declining in conjunction with her varied wardrobe.

12:36 PM


red sun said...
I can actually second Courtney's response, in that my daughter's rash had started as such (although not as severe looking as the one pictured) but has turned into a constant itchy spot, where she will itch until bleeding if I don't catch her. When I go home tonight, I'll monitor her clothing and see if her scratching coincides with the tagless items.

1:23 PM


Naomi said...
That is so awful! Thanks for letting us know about this.

2:23 PM


Andrea Reynolds said...
Jeremiah,
Our daughter is now 15 months old and the rashes began around the 5-6 month mark. I was told by ped. that it was eczema and would use special creams to relieve it, and then ironically would put her in a tagless onsie so as not to irritate her further. Needless to say, it wouldn't get better. About 2 months ago, we started putting her in different clothes (less "baby-ish" stuff) and the rash went away. Wrote it off to a passing thing. It only came back when we let her lounge around in onsies when we were having a lazy weekend. It never was a weeping wound, but a rash like the others have described that she would scratch at until it bled (NOT waht you want to see on your little one!) We also bought these clothes Summer 2007, Fall/Winter 2007 and Spring 2008 and primarily Carters, some Gerber (although they run so small, I tend to stay away from them, but had always liked Carters little play outfit styles). I also just picked up some of the Fall 2008 styles, but hadn't used any of them on her yet. I really hope you can get to the bottom of this. It is a truly disturbing thing to think this problem is so widespread (with such terrible consequences for babies and toddlers) and yet NO recalls or addressing of the issue by the companies involved. And thank you so much for bringing this to light here (and helping me to figure out the cause of this mini- nightmare).
Email andreareynods@suddenlink.net

3:52 PM


Kathy said...
My daughter's "eczema" started with a bang on March 15, 2008, when she started wearing size 12 months clothes. It continued on and off all spring and early summer. So, most of those clothes were purchased in fall-winter 2007-2008. Lots and lots of Carters, some Baby Gap, some Gymboree.

The rash has finally magically gone away, which come to think of it MIGHT coincide with when she moved up a size, and we started in on the clothes purchased this spring and summer.

We tried really hard to tie it to food, shampoo, or other allergens, with no luck. Her rash wasn't directly under the label, it was centered more on the nape of her neck, the back of her head, and behind her ears. Then again, that's where she can reach to scratch, unlike her upper back. The rash was very mild, but obviously itchy, because she scratched herself bloody many times.

And here I thought tagless clothes were a godsend, because my daughter's the sort to be driven crazy by the seams in her socks!

4:10 PM


amy said...
hey mamas and papas,

i am the reader that sent in the e-mail posted. i'll send some pictures later on tonight of the clothing but it makes me crazy to hear what carter's is telling us. their "quality assurance" rep told me it was an isolated incident with their Fall 08 line but we bought all of these clothes at a Carter's store in April-July 08. I have the receipts! It galls me as well that I was told by the same rep that it was tested by a third party lab and found to be non-toxic. she actually told me it was the "size of the label". my husband is a physician and he and his friends (fellow physicians) describe it as resembling a chemical burn. it's very interesting that carter's has answered parents calling their hotline re: the rash being caused by the size of label or inadequate air circulation. perhaps most interesting is that they asked me to send in all the clothing and they would reimburse me. they sent me an overnight envelope and a stuffed animal- ridiculous! i'd like to think that they are trying to keep me as a customer but then i'd be giving them these potentially toxic items. i think this stinks and i've held on to the clothing in case i can find a lab on my own. i'm so grateful that this conversation is getting out there. ps. carter's bough osh kosh in 2005.

6:59 PM


jeske_posse said...
Ok. I'm piping mad now. My 20 month old son has had off and on rashes on his upper back/neck going up into his rear hairline for the majority of his little life. He scratches it and it is red. We lotion really well with Aveeno, etc. But it doesn't help much. Doctors say allergies, eczema, etc. Lately, I've been told that it's probably eczema and that it's a sign of asthma. I never thought that it could be the tagless onesies he's been wearing almost everyday of his life! I'm going to try switching to different onesies or tape, etc. This would explain why he gets a rash and it clears up sometimes and then comes back...He wears tagless sometimes and some with soft ribbon tags other days. So angry, thank you for this information. I'll be sure to pass it on.

11:25 PM


Sarah said...
That is very freaky! What a scary thing to encounter with our children's clothes! I am so thankful for this post, and I will be watching this very closely. I haven't experienced any issues with tagless clothes. I know Old Navy is going more tagless, too.

Thanks for bringing this issue to parent's attention!

9:58 AM


bunny said...
Oh, goodness. This is terrible. No more Carter's until this is figured out.

We haven't had this happen, but most of my little one's clothes are hand-me-downs, so maybe the chemicals dissipate over time or weren't in older batches?

Would sewing a piece of felt over the area using thread that corresponded to the color of the fabric (since it'll show on the outside) help?

With felt, you wouldn't have to hem the edges of the patch, or even turn it under.

11:07 AM


Kelly said...
My 8 mo old has a spot on her back that I guessed was excema since her older sister had it as a baby. I thought it was strange that she didn't have any other places that were irritated. She wears mostly tagless clothes, Carter's and others, so I'll be watching it closely from now on. Thanks for this post!!!!

11:17 AM


Anonymous said...
An ironic thing is the tagless is a response to relatively recent paperish clothing labels irritating kids. My son hates them. I've got a couple of shirts myself that have these labels which constantly poke me. You can't just cut them off because then the sharp edges stick out of the seam. Let's hope that they go back to a fabric label instead of the whatever kind of paper that is. More expense I'm sure, but I'll pay for it.

1:27 PM


Jeremiah McNichols said...
@Anonymous: Yes, the pokey tag issue only began when companies started switching to cheaper synthetic tag materials rather than higher-quality cloth.

2:01 PM


Dirty 'Dova Mama said...
Oh! This makes me so mad! I have been battling a rash on my daughter's neck for 4 months now, since she moved up into her 12m Carter's onesies (Fall 07 line). They are her pajamas, so we have faithfully put them on her every night at bedtime. It's not as severe as the pics posted on here, but it stays perpetually raw, and she will scratch it until it bleeds if I can't catch her in time. Her pediatrician also said it was "isolated eczema." After reading this though, I highly doubt that's the case. I plan to remove all her tagless items from her wardrobe and see if that helps. Thanks for this post! I never would have connected the tags to her rash!

11:18 PM


Elise said...
I posted this to a local mamas mailing list and have been getting dozens of confirmations of identical reactions. And I also realized it's happened on and off to us too. So frustrating and scary...

9:03 AM


Amy S said...
My son has had the same reaction for the past 2 months. I though it was just eczema as his older bother has it pretty bad. Even the doctor wasn't really concerned. I wanted to take pics of it, but I never did. His back was cracked, weaping and skin was peeling off in sheets. I started putting medical tape over the tag and it has mostly healed.

12:54 PM


mannequin said...
Oh good heavens. How horrible!
I haven't experienced that, having no young child but I would be absolutely livid!

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

3:28 PM


happyathome said...
What amazes me is that the companies know this well enough and are not doing anything about it! Pretty much everyone trusts Carters, let alone it is affordable. Infant wear! This is much worse than a sippy cup, it has immediate effects. I just bought some pajamas for the fall, I am considering just calling them and stating I want my money back now and I will not have my daughter wear their clothes again! The trust has been broken.

5:07 PM


happyathome said...
One more note, have you read what they posted on their web site for contact us?
"We are straightforward, down to earth people focused on providing what matters most to parents, babies and kids."
This just makes me even more mad! Phone calls need to start pouring in to them, espcially with that statement!

5:14 PM


Dirty 'Dova Mama said...
My husband called Carter's this morning and spoke extensively with them about the issue. They said they are aware of the problem, but will not recall their products because it hasn't effected every child. We plan to pursue our legal options, as I luckily took pictures of her rash with her first outbreak in May, as well as having her medical records. We are documenting our daughter's story on our Tagless Torture blog.

5:26 PM


Anonymous said...
My son (2 years) often has a rash on the back of his neck. we thought it was probably heat rash, since we live in a humid climate. He doesn't wear carters, but does wear stuff that is tagless from Gap, the Children's Place and others. The rash comes and goes, so I'll have to see if it corresponds to the tagless outfits. Unfortunately, we just got a BUNCH of Carter's tagless stuff for our new baby, due in 2 weeks.

9:55 PM


Jennifer said...
It's good to send your experience to Zrecs, but the best course of action is actually to report your incident to the U.S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission. The direct link to report your issue is http://www.cpsc.gov/talk.html

I'm so sorry that anyone's children have been hurt by such a seemingly innocent thing! Let's get some official attention on the issue and get the CPSC involved to protect all of our nation's kids.

11:12 AM


Anonymous said...
Almost all my kids clothing is tagless but it doesn't seem to affect my them. I wonder if it only affects some kids not others or if it might have something to do with friction.

1:39 PM


Rachel said...
I've had a bad rash on my lower back for over a year - some of my other family also had a similar rash. This morning after getting dressed, I realized I was scratching this rash, so I looked - tagless underware - Fruit of the Loom and washed many times. I've also got tagless Hanes. And the "tag" lands dead center of the itchy spot. I turned them inside out so the tag was facing out - the itching is basically gone. These by fruit of the loom are a kind of iron on tag. I'll be watching all the tagless stuff from now on - but I do remember I have a few T-shirts that I always wonder why they itch so bad without a tag....

9:40 AM


YK Wright said...
OMG. My now 15 month old daughter had this EXACT same thing!!! The doc thought it was a heat rash. It lasted for WEEKS!!! It's since dissappeared and i havent had a problem for about the past two months, but maybe that's because 1) she's grown out of those clothing that i was using (though she still wears some carter's stuff just in bigger sizes. Could have been stuff bought in the fall that i was still using in early spring...) or 2) she's gotten used to the chemical... or maybe has grown out of the allergy??? Not sure but i will certainly tell my doc about it...

1:04 PM


Amelia Sprout said...
I worked with a woman who had a latex allergy and couldn't wear tagless clothing because she said many use latex. Is it possible that the allergy is really to latex?

9:38 PM


Ariel said...
Sheesh! My dd had a rash on the back of her neck recently, I wonder if her tagless clothes could be contributing to it.

But the problem is, pretty much everything is tagless these days! We do most of our shopping at target, old navy, kohls, etc, and almost everything is tagless.

12:51 PM


meka foo said...
Oh MY GOD... My son also has had an on and off again rash at the back of neck for about 6 months (he's two). I thought that the source was a too sharp tag, never imagined that it could be the TAGLESS clothes. I will try to get a pic and send it in. In the meantime, I'm getting out the scissors tonight. I'm pretty sure that the only tagless things we own are Carter's PJs that were gifts. I'm horrified and SO VERY ANGRY.

2:19 PM


AgnesCB said...
My 2 and 4 year old sons have both worn tagless Carters pajamas bought late spring 2008 (might be the summer 2008 collection) through the summer, the youngest one exclusively.

None of them have exhibited any signs of a rash or itching, although the youngest is barely fighting off the last symptoms of baby eczema (all over his body, since birth, cause was never isolated) and labeled as having sensitive skin.

4:39 PM


Andrea said...
This is the kind of thing that is just appalling to me. When I started our clothing company this was one of our TOP priorities--health & safety.
ALWAYS look for clothing companies that use Phthalate-FREE & PVC-FREE printing. If they don't explicitly say that they do, they probably don't.

Go as Natural as possible! My daughter used to have bad eczema. We started using natural scent free laundry soap and within a week or two it was GONE! People forget that their skin really absorbs all of these chemicals in the clothing.

Pooka is our children's clothing line. And all of our tees are TAGLESS BUT all of our clothing is PVC and Phthalate-Free (as well as organic). We don't have any baby stuff yet though--just older kids. :(

I believe that companies have a responsibility to do what's best for their customers--NOT their bottom line!

Good luck everyone.

7:42 PM


Farrah said...
I am going to take a picture of my 14 month old's neck and send it in. He gets a rash there CONSTANTLY. We have mostly Carter's. And some of these clothes must be from the spring/summer 2008 line.

11:23 PM


Mom2C said...
I've just written an email to the authors Denise and Alan Fields who authored the popular book Baby Bargains. They have Carters listed as one of the top baby lines and I've asked their assistance in getting the company to change or issue a RECALL. If the company does nothing, I am sure the 8th edition will have this disclosed in the baby clothing section!

This is so unacceptable!

10:45 AM

A Recall Waiting to Happen: Carter's Tagless Baby Clothes

UPDATE: The mainstream media has finally picked up this story. From KNBC in California: KNBC's Ana Garcia Investigates Carter's Tagless Clothes

NOTE: UPDATE HERE

Carter's baby clothing line is perhaps the most ubiquitous baby clothing line in the country. They are inexpensive and found just about everywhere. Unfortunately, Carter's tagless baby clothes (the tag has been replaced by a sort of silk-screen tag) have been causing some serious problems. Apparently, when the tag square comes in contact with an infant's skin, it is leaving a rash, burn, or welt. The web is quickly filling with reports--and photos--like this. This photo is from blog, http://thoughtsluiza.blogspot.com/.

Carter's has been somewhat responsive: parents are reporting that complaints result in refunds and a request for every single Carter's item they own be returned to the company in a pre-paid mailer. I hope this means they are testing the items rather than collecting them all to avoid lawsuits. In any case, a recall can be instigated more quickly if parents contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: 1-800-638-2772 or file online by clicking here.

The possibilities are literally endless. Formaldehyde: direct contact on skin creates symptoms like this. Heavy metals? From one of my favorite sites, Z Recommends comes this information:

An individual who identified themselves on a message board as being "involved with the manufacturing of tagless labels" said that there are two basic types of tagless labels - one made of phthalate-containing PVC, and the other containing two possible irritants:

One is a plastisol type, which is the same basic material that the large designs on the front of t-shirts is made of... the ink is a PVC blended into a phthalate... at a certain temperature the PVC melts and the 2 components form a solid... that solid is transferred to the shirt with heat and pressure... this type of ink is on the way out as phthalates are now being classified as hazardous... residual phthalate from not fully fused ink is what is most likely causing the reaction.

The other type of ink is a solventborne polyurethane that is post cured via a catalyst... typically a polyisocyanate... this ink can have 2 possible irritants... small levels of formaldehyde in the urethane or residual polyisocyanate that is left unreacted...

You can find the whole Z Rec's article on the tagless problem here. It seems as if Carter's is not the only tagless onesie causing this problem, but what I find interesting is that this problem has not arisen before. These tagless clothes have been around for at least a couple years with few if any reports of such a reaction, that I'm aware of. I'll follow this story. In the meantime, I suggest considering getting rid of your Carter's tagless infant clothes and, as a precaution, considering getting rid of any tagless clothing. (I just bought a bunch of tagless clothes from Baby Gap that have the same kind of "tag" on the back.) My son has had no reaction to any tagless products but it may just be a question of tolerance level. Direct exposure to phthalates or formaldehyde, whether or not it results in an "open, weeping sore", is to be avoided at all costs.

My Picks

NOTE: The Alpha Crib has been recalled by the CPSC, along with almost every other drop-side crib. DO NOT buy this crib, even though it is a nontoxic choice.

I get a lot of e-mails from people asking what I recommend for baby wash, diaper wipes, toddler plates, bibs, bottles, etc. A number of my favorite products can be found under "Links," but I thought I'd draw up a list this morning of infant products that I consider the safest and most effective on the market. Just a note: I have absolutely no connection to any of the companies mentioned here. I do not accept advertisements on my site (the ones that appear are affiliate-based and of my own choosing) and I do not accept free samples, with the exception of a few Green to Grow nipples that I tested for the company about eight months ago.

Bottles
Born Free bottles are by far the best bottles we've tried. Among the first BPA-free bottles (if not the first), Born Frees are also extremely well designed. It is made up of four different pieces, including a flow regulator valve that modulates flow from the nipple in what has proven for us to be the perfect flow rate. My son was breastfed until he was eleven months old, and for those days when Mom had to run out to do a chore while Grandma watched him, these worked beautifully. We tried Medela's bottles (I used the Medela electronic breast pump, which was amazing), Soothies (before we knew they contained BPA), and Green to Grow bottles, which are another BPA-free brand and manufactured by a wonderful and conscientious company. Green to Grow's flow rate was just too fast for my son; I've heard similar complaints from other parents, but I am told that the Born Free flow valve fits into the neck of the attractive Green to Grow bottles. I wasn't able to do this myself.

Diaper Wipes
Seventh Generation chlorine-free diaper wipes were hands down the best, and not just because they don't contain parabens and alcohol. They were simply more effective at wiping up messes. I tried Pamper's "Sensitive" wipes for a while, noting they were paraben-free and also noting that the company claimed they were also "alcohol-free," which is not true. They were too slippery, almost soapy. For us, Seventh Generation chlorine-free diaper wipes were the best. I recently tried out Earth Best's new chlorine-free diaper wipes, and also like them. My only complaint is in the design of the EB dispenser itself, which makes it a little difficult to pull a wipe free as you are grasping your baby's ankles in your other hand. Earth's Best diaper wipes are now available at Babies R Us, as are Seventh Generation products.

Baby Wash
For a while, I was planting notes at various Targets in the Johnson & Johnson baby products section that read "These products contain parabens." But judging from my local Target, I wonder if parents are taking it upon themselves to buy safer baby products. The J&J shelf is always full; the California Baby and Burt's Bees sections are always empty or close to empty. Anyway, my choice for safest and most effective baby wash is Burt's Bee's baby wash. It is free from nasty ingredients and utilizes coconut oil. It does not contain parabens, phthalates, or even Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS). The latter is most impressive to me because even "natural" or "nontoxic" products usually contain this (Method, for example, contains this in its handwash). Another company I love is Serendipity Soap Co.. Run by two moms in Colorado, these handmade soaps are also free from phthalates, parabens, SLS, etc. That's because these moms make the soap the old-fashioned way, and they do it late at night, after their kids have gone to sleep, in big pots on their stoves. They have a whole line of soaps made especially for baby, as well as soaps for adults. One note about California Baby. We used their sensitive baby wash for a while, but my son developed a really nasty case of eczema. We stopped using it and the eczema went away. We phased the wash in again, and the eczema returned. I share this anecdote just to let you know that even nontoxic products have the potential to aggravate skin, because we can be sensitive to natural ingredients as well.

Baby Food
For me, the best organic baby food was, hands down, Earth's Best. Widely available (even available at Target) and featuring a wide variety of flavors, this product was a lifesaver. The co-ops and Whole Foods stores usually carry a wider variety than the big box stores, and I've found that at Whole Foods, at least, the price is surprisingly competitive--likely because they buy in bulk. Another plus is that the food is packaged in small glass containers. Gerber's is now offering organic fare, but their product is packaged in plastic containers. I also made some baby food along the way, utilizing a food mill, but my son much preferred his Earth's Best. I tried not to take it personally.

Sippy Cups and Baby Bowls
This is actually a recent find. On that trip to Babies R' Us, I was delighed to find Boon products. First we bought Hudson a Boon Sippy Cup, which is BPA-free. It requires a great deal of suction from the baby, but its design is so irresistable, to my son, at least, that he doesn't mind. But keep in mind that the flow is quite restricted. I love this element because nothing my son does with it can induce it to spill. He even holds it upside down and shakes it, and it is still unspillable. Sweet. We also tried out Avent's BPA-free Magic Cup sippy cup, and so far that one is working out okay as well. We bought the Safe Sippy but that didn't work out too well for us, because of the amount of suction required. We're going to give it another try, though, in about six months. The Boon Interlocking Plate and Bowl Set is also BPA-free and our favorite.

Crib Mattress
This one is easy. No-Compromise Crib Mattress. This one is widely available; I recently bought one as a baby gift for my sister-in-law off Amazon. They are PVC/vinyl-free, utilizing polyethylene instead (food-grade). They do not contain noxious fire retardants found in most crib mattress; instead the compay uses a fire protection system (detailed in exhaustive detail on the website) that is free from those possibly carcinogenic toxins. This is an expensive mattress. There is no question about that. But for me, it was what I splurged on because it gave me peace of mind. Maybe I didn't get that ridiculously expensive diaper bag, and I guess I didn't buy all the wall decorations and nursery accessories that I might have otherwise. But this mattress was, to me, far more important than any of those other nursery furnishings. One note: I noticed at Babies R Us that Serta is selling a "safe" baby mattress. I'm glad large companies are taking note of the dangers of polyurethane foam mattresses; but be sure to read the fine print and note if these companies are still dousing their mattresses in fire retardant.

Cribs
When our son was born, we went to Babies R Us online and ordered one of those cherry wood-looking cribs, a la Pottery Barn. I was seduced by making the nursery look "cute" and "stylish", even though my son ended up sleeping in our bed for the first 9 months of his life, and later, in a crib in our room. (He's finally sleeping in his own room.) We ended up breaking this crib because we tried to move it. I am thankful for that, because even though I had sealed the particleboard mattress platform with SafeSeal (something I recommend to anyone who has exposed particleboard in his or her home), it was not a good crib. We happened upon Dax Stores, which is a retailer of the vaunted Pacific Rim crib but also a limited number of other totally nontoxic, particle-board free cribs. We chose the unassuming Alpha crib in natural finish. I don't know the VOC count of the stain they use, though they claim it is "nontoxic", so I can't recommend getting it stained. But the Alpha crib has been a godsend. It's a very attractive crib (something that is difficult to tell from the picture on the website; the crib dressing is very unflattering) and the mattress platform is not made from particleboard but is instead wire mesh. The Pacific Rim crib, which Dax Stores sells, is the king of all nontoxic cribs. Hand-crafted, finished with nontoxic tung oil, it is also the most expensive nontoxic crib I've seen. It is made with solid, sustainably-harvested wood. At Dax Stores, shipping on orders over $100 is free.