Beijing resident Zhang Hua has been a loyal customer of Johnson & Johnson, using the company’s shampoos and other baby products on her infant son since he was born two years ago. But now, Zhang feels guilty for using Johnson & Johnson products so blindly, especially since the company is embroiled in a scandal involving the discovery of carcinogens in its products.
Even after her doctor told Zhang that her baby’s health wasn’t affected, Zhang still felt uneasy and removed all the Johnson & Johnson products from her bathroom.
On November 1, the United States’non-profit Campaign for Safe Cosmetics scolded Johnson & Johnson for selling its shampoo with traces of quaternium-15, a known carcinogen, in China, Indonesia and other countries. The chemical was removed from bottles sold in Denmark, Finland and South Africa.
Quaternium-15 is added to many cosmetic products to prevent spoiling and contamination, and works by releasing formaldehyde to kill bacteria. The group also cited the presence of dioxane in baby shampoo.
As early as 2009, several baby shampoos produced by Johnson & Johnson were found to contain toxic chemicals including the carcinogens quaternium-15 and dioxane. After that, Johnson & Johnson promised to remove toxic chemicals from its baby products. The fact is that today the company is still using the formaldehyde-releasing ingredient in its baby shampoo in China, while making formaldehyde-free versions of the shampoo available in Japan and the EU.
Zhang, like other Chinese parents who used to trust Johnson & Johnson, hopes that the multinational will “practice morality” in response to the revelation of harmful chemicals in its baby products.
For its part, Johnson & Johnson released a statement on November 2 saying that they have been phasing out formaldehyde releasing preservatives from their baby products and the preservative technologies they use are safe and approved by authorities in the European Union and the United States, as well as in China and India.
But Johnson & Johnson’s statement could not ease the fury of Zhang and other Chinese customers. Since no official departments in China have declared that the chemical contained in Johnson & Johnson’s baby products is harmful, its products were still on supermarket shelves instead of being recalled or removed.
The panic was particularly intense among young Chinese mothers. A poll conducted by Ifeng.com, which is affiliated to Hong Kong’s Phoenix TV, showed that 94.4 percent of interviewees are boycotting Johnson & Johnson’s baby shampoo.
Official response
China’s State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA) said on November 4 that in the wake of a recent debate on the safety of infant products, its experts have started to evaluate and monitor possible risks regarding the use of quarternium-15 in cosmetics.
On November 8, SFDA spokesperson Wang Lianglan said, “China caps maximum content for quaternium-15 at 0.2 percent, similar to the United States and Europe. Some countries ban the ingredient altogether. Therefore, the experts participating in the evaluation have different opinions and we will adopt measures regulating the sales of related products once the evaluation is complete.”
China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine carried out an inspection on Johnson & Johnson’s products in 2009 following allegations that the company’s bath products contained harmful substances.
The quality check showed that all tested infant bath products were in line with the country’s regulations, although one batch was found to contain a slight amount of dioxane.
This time SFDA will focus its check on quaternium-15. According to China’s Cosmetics Hygiene Standard released by the Ministry of Health in 2007, quaternium-15 is one of 56 preservatives allowed in cosmetics and a maximum dose of 0.2 percent is allowed.
Actually, the check on Johnson & Johnson is not about China singling out foreign companies. Enterprises should fulfill their social responsibilities, and they are not only bound to obey laws and regulations but must also practice morality and self-discipline, said state news agency Xinhua.
Double standard
Johnson & Johnson has issued 22 recalls since September 2009, none of which affected the Chinese market. More Chinese consumers are condemning Johnson & Johnson for its “double standards” in different markets.
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, to the Associated Press.
In response, Johnson & Johnson insisted that it is recalling problematic products in overseas markets not related to China since over-the-counter medicines sold in the Chinese market were all produced in its factory in Shanghai.
Industry analysts hold different views in that when it comes to product recalls, quality standards, no matter where it is produced, should be the determinant. Obviously, differentiated treatment of recalling in different countries shows that Johnson & Johnson is using a double standard.
In 2005, its baby oil was accused of containing paraffin wax which is harmful to human health. After that Johnson & Johnson insisted that the paraffin wax was within the scope of China’s national standard.
“The toxic substances that are not allowed in other countries were used by Johnson & Johnson in China. Obviously, it is problematic. We Chinese are the same humans as those in other countries, so why are we allowed to use products produced under different quality standards?” Zhang said.
Today, more Chinese consumers care about their health and avoid using cosmetic products with strong scents, colors or long shelf lives. The contents of Johnson & Johnson’s products should change to comply with domestic habits.
Johnson & Johnson said in an earlier statement that it was also working to develop different baby product formulae, including ones that contain non-formaldehyde-releasing preservatives.
Raising the bar
With the rapid economic development, more and more Chinese consumers focus on social responsibilities of a company, while Johnson & Johnson can’t make an exception in the Chinese case.
A company should stick to a unified global standard for its products. This is not only a basic philosophy in production, but also shows the integrity of a global brand.
Accusations over Johnson & Johnson’s differentiated quality standards in different countries also raised calls for a higher national quality standard among Chinese consumers. Zhang and other Chinese customers continue to question the safety of quaternium-15. Since quaternium-15 and dioxane have been widely used in cosmetics and baby products in China, should the country scrutinize the safety of these products?
“There are many different materials available as bath foam ingredients. The one containing dioxane is just one choice. Technically speaking, producing safer products is completely possible for Johnson & Johnson, said Dong Jinshi, Executive Vice President of International Food Packaging Association. “The problem is whether it is willing to do so, because it means higher costs.”
Dong laid the hopes of safer quality on higher national standards.
“It is not realistic for enterprises to improve their quality standards out of their own will because of the cost. The way out is improving mandatory quality standards,” Dong said.
Average Chinese customers put the blame on quality watchdogs.
“I wish China would adopt higher quality standards,” Zhang said.
The absence of social organizations to protect customer interests in China is also considered a reason why China lags far behind other countries, like the United States, in quality supervision.
“The United States has a complete legal and social system for protecting customers’interests, especially independent and nongovernmental organizations. They find clues of those harmful products and dig into it and even sue the producers. If China has enough social organizations of this kind, its food and drug safety problem will be much easier to deal with,” said China Youth Daily.