Whether baby wipes are toxic or not depends on the ingredients. Some popular brands, such as Huggies or Pampers, that are known for their baby scent use an astounding amount of chemicals to achieve that scent.
​
These chemicals are toxic for both babies and the environment. Baby wipes using natural and organic ingredients typically do not contain these additional chemicals, making them wonderful non-toxic baby wipes. 

Many moms are well-intended to select the common brands of baby wipes. Afterall, baby wipes are packed with chemicals to make them efficient, a little more durable than toilet paper, and smell beautiful. However, some of those chemicals are not good for your baby.
​
It is in the best interest of the consumer, the mom and baby, to make sure to read the package before you purchase a pack of disposable baby wipes. Here are some ingredients to look out for:

The fragrance is a general term that is used to encompass several different ingredients. If an ingredient contributes to making the wipes smell good, it can be labeled as “fragrance.”
Many of these fragrances are petro-chemicals and are therefore toxic, and some of them are just not good for your little one’s skin. Instead, opt for fragrance-free wipes. Babies naturally smell adorable!

If you do wind up buying baby wipes that are scented, double-check the ingredient list. Companies can use the term fragrance to encompass harmful ingredients. They are not required to list the ingredients or chemicals that are used to make their baby wipes smell the way that they do because this is considered a trade secret. This means that if the fragrance is created using parabens, for example, the company does not have to tell you because it is in the “fragrance” category.

Fragrances have been linked to all sorts of health conditions, from autoimmune issues including contact dermatitis, and migraines and respiratory issues.

Make no mistake - you read that right. Formaldehyde has made headlines in recent years as it’s been found in baby wipes. This chemical is a known carcinogen, meaning that it can cause cancer.
It’s also a known irritant causing allergic reactions in babies. Additionally, formaldehyde is known to be:

• Genotoxic: damage the genetic information within a cell causing mutations, which may lead to cancer
• ​Inflammatory
• Neurotoxic: damage to the brain and nerve cells
• Hepatotoxic: damage to the liver and liver cells
• Oxidant: damage cells by starting chemical chain reactions such as lipid peroxidation, or by oxidizing DNA or proteins
• Teratogenic: cause congenital disorders in a developing embryo or fetus

Researchers have observed over half of the popular baby wipe brands that were tested released formaldehyde during a study. What is even scarier is that none of the wipes listed formaldehyde as an ingredient. 

A current examination of the scientific data collected on the exposure to formaldehyde is associated with the following health conditions and abnormal physiologic events:

This antibacterial ingredient found in soaps and other products has been linked to allergies, endocrine disruption, weight gain and inflammatory responses, and may aggravate the growth of liver and kidney tumors. It’s also used commonly as a preservative.

However, Triclosan was recently removed from antibacterial hand soaps because it can pass through the skin, which will lead to it having an effect on the body. It’s known to cause an allergic reaction as well as disrupt hormones. When triclosan is broken down, it can turn into Dioxin, which is known to cause cancer. 

Here is list of the known physiologic mechanisms in which triclosan exerts it's harmful effects:

• Anti-Fertility: an agent that is known to disrupt reproductive function
• Neurotoxic
• Abortive: an agent that can result in spontaneous abortion to pregnant mothers
• Endocrine Disruptor (Thyroid): suppresses the function of the thyroid gland which is essential for normal homeostasis
• Cardiotoxic: damages the function of the heart cells and heart function
• Cytotoxic: damages cellular function
• Genotoxic: property of chemical agents that damage the genetic information within a cell causing mutations, which may lead to cancer
• Hepatotoxic
• Sulfotransferase inhibitors: inhibits the function of the enzyme sulfotransferase, which plays a role in liver diseases

Exposure to, and the consumption of triclosan is associated with the following health conditions and abnormal physiologic events: 

Propylene glycol, also known as propane-1,2-diol, is compound used for various cosmetic, pharmaceutical and industrial applications, including as a solvent, humectant, preservative, and surfactant.

Propylene glycol consumption results in kidney, liver, and neurologic toxicity, and it is certainly not recommended for pregnant women. Propylene glycol is a skin irritant, it may increase the absorption of other harmful excipients, and disrupts permeability of the blood brain barrier.

When used in products like baby wipes, propylene glycol is intended to increase skin absorption of any ingredients more effectively, and at a quicker rate. This results in the body absorbing all of the toxic ingredients that are found in baby wipes, so it’s best to avoid this ingredient entirely. 

​Polyethylene Glycol (PEG), otherwise known as Macrogol, Carbowax and many other derivatives when combined with other substances. PEG is a synthetic chemical compound derived from petroleum that is widely used for a variety of uses, including as a moisture carrier, solvent, preservative, thickener, and much more. 

PEG is another chemical that will help the skin absorb the ingredients of the baby wipes. Even though it’s a different chemical that is used, it still does the same thing as propylene glycol, which helps your little one absorb chemicals which may include carcinogens, including ethylene oxide, and potentially dioxane depending on the manufacturer. 

PEG is classified as biologically inert by our FDA. It is the “Gold Standard” for use in many medications to increase the blood clearance time, or in other words, the time it remains in one’s system, thereby enhancing drug effect. It is also used in drug manufacturing as an excipient for long term stabilization, bulking, and other therapeutic enhancements. It is used as a coating to prevent bacterial adhesion on orthopedic screws and sutures. In addition to medical uses, PEG is also used in cosmetics, foods, industrial applications, and other health and beauty products such as soaps, shampoos, toothpastes. It is also used as an e-cigarette liquid. PEG is everywhere in our environment, which is what many have surmised has led to a high percentage of the US population developing anti-PEG antibodies. This, of course, presents a significant challenge to those who rely on this substance in their manufacturing.
​
Scientific studies to quantify the seriousness of the problem estimate that approximately 72% of the US population has acquired anti PEG antibodies. The referenced study used blood samples taken from 1990-1999 and earlier, showing a steady increase over time in the percentage of those with antibodies to PEG, making it conservative to estimate, after two decades, that the incidence is closer to 80% today. This circumstance has concerned the medical and pharmaceutical communities as an equally effective alternative has escaped identification, although several have been suggested, and because the great cost of shifting to such an alternative.

Not only is PEG a “stealth” medicinal additive, delaying blood clearance due to its properties, but it is a stealth allergen, the vast majority of the population never having heard of it and many in the healthcare industry being unaware of its antigenic properties. A physician survey found:

“Although 91% of respondents were aware of antidrug antibodies in general, only 22% were aware of APA (Anti-PEG Antibody) responses. Further, there was limited awareness (35%) of PEG’s inclusion in prescribed PEGylated therapeutics.”

Sodium benzoate is also used as a preservative, to extend the shelf-life of products, and is actually the sodium salt of benzoic acid. 

The substance is an odorless, crystalline powder made by combining benzoic acid and sodium hydroxide, per a December 2015 article in ​Biotechnology and Health Sciences​.

Chemical exposure and consumption of sodium benzoate is linked with a variety of health conditions and abnormal physiologic events, including but not limited to:​

Liou, Yujie Linda, et al. “Formaldehyde Release from Baby Wipes: Analysis Using the Chromotropic Acid Method.” Dermatitis, vol. 30, no. 3, May 2019, pp. 207–212, https://doi.org/10.1097/der.0000000000000478. 

Steinemann, Anne. “Health and Societal Effects from Exposure to Fragranced Consumer Products.” Preventive Medicine Reports, vol. 5, Mar. 2017, pp. 45–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.11.011.

McCann, Donna, et al. “Food Additives and Hyperactive Behaviour in 3-Year-Old and 8/9-Year-Old Children in the Community: A Randomised, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial.” The Lancet, vol. 370, no. 9598, Nov. 2007, pp. 1560–1567, www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61306-3/fulltext, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61306-3.
​
Nair, B. “Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Benzyl Alcohol, Benzoic Acid, and Sodium Benzoate.” International Journal of Toxicology, vol. 20 Suppl 3, 2001, pp. 23–50, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11766131, https://doi.org/10.1080/10915810152630729.

Fujitani, T. “Short-Term Effect of Sodium Benzoate in F344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice.” Toxicology Letters, vol. 69, no. 2, 1 Aug. 1993, pp. 171–179, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8212059/, https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4274(93)90102-4.

Tsay, Huey-Jen, et al. “Treatment with Sodium Benzoate Leads to Malformation of Zebrafish Larvae.” Neurotoxicology and Teratology, vol. 29, no. 5, 1 Sept. 2007, pp. 562–569, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17644306/, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2007.05.001.

Hu, Mingqian, et al. “[Analysis of Sodium Benzoate Biotoxicity by Atomic Force Microscope].” Sheng Wu Gong Cheng Xue Bao = Chinese Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 24, no. 8, 1 Aug. 2008, pp. 1428–1432, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18998546/, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1872-2075(08)60064-3.

Oyanagi, Kazuhiko, et al. “Cytotoxicities of Sodium Benzoate in Primary Culture of Hepatocytes from Adult Rat Liver.” The Tohoku Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 152, no. 1, 1987, pp. 47–51, www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tjem1920/152/1/152_1_47/_article, https://doi.org/10.1620/tjem.152.47.

Haque, Haroon, et al. “Effectiveness of Sodium Benzoate as a Freshwater Low Toxicity Antifoulant When Dispersed in Solution and Entrapped in Silicone Coatings.” Biofouling, vol. 21, no. 2, 2005, pp. 109–119, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16109600/, https://doi.org/10.1080/08927010500222551. 

O’Connor, J. E., et al. “The Potentiation of Ammonia Toxicity by Sodium Benzoate Is Prevented by L-Carnitine.” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, vol. 145, no. 2, 15 June 1987, pp. 817–824, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3593373/, https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-291x(87)91038-2. 

Stefanidou, M., et al. “Assessing Food Additive Toxicity Using a Cell Model.” Veterinary and Human Toxicology, vol. 45, no. 2, 1 Mar. 2003, pp. 103–105, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12678300/. 

Mpountoukas, P., et al. “Cytogenetic Study in Cultured Human Lymphocytes Treated with Three Commonly Used Preservatives.” Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol. 46, no. 7, July 2008, pp. 2390–2393, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2008.03.021.

Whittaker, A., et al. “Toxic Additives in Medication for Preterm Infants.” Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition, vol. 94, no. 4, 1 July 2009, pp. F236-240, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19158148/, https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2008.146035. 

Zosel, Amy, et al. “Severe Lactic Acidosis after an Iatrogenic Propylene Glycol Overdose.” Pharmacotherapy, vol. 30, no. 2, Feb. 2010, pp. 219–219, https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.30.2.219. 

Bailey, David N. “Propylene Glycol as a Vehicle for Percutaneous Absorption of Therapeutic Agents.” Journal of Analytical Toxicology, vol. 16, no. 2, 1 Mar. 1992, pp. 97–98, https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/16.2.97. 

Sood, Rohit, et al. “Quantitative Evaluation of the Effect of Propylene Glycol on BBB Permeability.” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: JMRI, vol. 25, no. 1, 1 Jan. 2007, pp. 39–47, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17173307/, https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20802. Accessed 14 Dec. 2023.

Den Hond, Elly, et al. “Human Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Fertility: A Case–Control Study in Male Subfertility Patients.” Environment International, vol. 84, Nov. 2015, pp. 154–160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.07.017.

​Jurewicz, Joanna, et al. “Environmental Levels of Triclosan and Male Fertility.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 25, no. 6, 7 Dec. 2017, pp. 5484–5490, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5823964/, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0866-5. 

Wang, Xiaoli, et al. “Triclosan Causes Spontaneous Abortion Accompanied by Decline of Estrogen Sulfotransferase Activity in Humans and Mice.” Scientific Reports, vol. 5, no. 1, 15 Dec. 2015, p. 18252, www.nature.com/articles/srep18252, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18252. 

Geer, Laura A., et al. “Association of Birth Outcomes with Fetal Exposure to Parabens, Triclosan and Triclocarban in an Immigrant Population in Brooklyn, New York.” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 323, no. Pt A, 5 Feb. 2017, pp. 177–183, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27156397/, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.03.028.

Weatherly, Lisa M., et al. “Antimicrobial Agent Triclosan Is a Proton Ionophore Uncoupler of Mitochondria in Living Rat and Human Mast Cells and in Primary Human Keratinocytes.” Journal of Applied Toxicology, vol. 36, no. 6, 23 July 2015, pp. 777–789, https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3209. 

López-Pacheco, Itzel Y., et al. “Anthropogenic Contaminants of High Concern: Existence in Water Resources and Their Adverse Effects.” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 690, Nov. 2019, pp. 1068–1088, tec.mx/sites/default/files/2019-08/1-s2.0-S0048969719331651-main%20%281%29.pdf, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.052. 

Paul, Katie B., et al. “Developmental Triclosan Exposure Decreases Maternal and Neonatal Thyroxine in Rats.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 29, no. 12, 15 Oct. 2010, pp. 2840–2844, https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.339.

Huang, Wei, et al. “Lipid Metabolism Disorders Contribute to Hepatotoxicity of Triclosan in Mice.” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 384, 15 Feb. 2020, p. 121310, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389419312646, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121310. 

Rodríguez, Pablo E. A., and Mónica S. Sanchez. “Maternal Exposure to Triclosan Impairs Thyroid Homeostasis and Female Pubertal Development in Wistar Rat Offspring.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, vol. 73, no. 24, 29 Oct. 2010, pp. 1678–1688, https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2010.516241. 

Tobar, Steven, et al. “Triclosan Promotes Epicutaneous Sensitization to Peanut in Mice.” Clinical and Translational Allergy, vol. 6, no. 1, 5 Apr. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13601-016-0102-2. 


Park, Bo Kyung, et al. “Effects of Triclosan on Neural Stem Cell Viability and Survival.” Biomolecules & Therapeutics, vol. 24, no. 1, 1 Jan. 2016, pp. 99–107, www.biomolther.org/journal/view.html?volume=24&number=1&spage=99&year=2016, https://doi.org/10.4062/biomolther.2015.164. 

Pollock, Tyler, et al. “Triclosan Exacerbates the Presence of 14C-Bisphenol a in Tissues of Female and Male Mice.” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, vol. 278, no. 2, 15 July 2014, pp. 116–123, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X14001574, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2014.04.017. 

Shim, Juyoung, et al. “Triclosan Is a Mitochondrial Uncoupler in Live Zebrafish.” Journal of Applied Toxicology, vol. 36, no. 12, 28 Mar. 2016, pp. 1662–1667, https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3311. 

Lin, Dasong, et al. “Potential Biochemical and Genetic Toxicity of Triclosan as an Emerging Pollutant on Earthworms (Eisenia Fetida).” Chemosphere, vol. 81, no. 10, Nov. 2010, pp. 1328–1333, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.08.027. 

Stoker, Tammy E., et al. “Triclosan Exposure Modulates Estrogen-Dependent Responses in the Female Wistar Rat.” Toxicological Sciences, vol. 117, no. 1, 1 Sept. 2010, pp. 45–53, academic.oup.com/toxsci/article-abstract/117/1/45/1682020?redirectedFrom=fulltext, https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfq180.

Pearce, Elizabeth N., and Lewis E. Braverman. “Environmental Pollutants and the Thyroid.” Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, vol. 23, no. 6, Dec. 2009, pp. 801–813, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2009.06.003.

Jm, Braun. “Early-Life Exposure to EDCs: Role in Childhood Obesity and Neurodevelopment.” Nature Reviews. Endocrinology, 1 Mar. 2017, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27857130/.

Zeng, Liudan, et al. “LINE-1 Gene Hypomethylation and P16 Gene Hypermethylation in HepG2 Cells Induced by Low-Dose and Long-Term Triclosan Exposure: The Role of Hydroxyl Group.” Toxicology in Vitro: An International Journal Published in Association with BIBRA, vol. 34, 1 Aug. 2016, pp. 35–44, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26970259/, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2016.03.002. 

Wang, Cai-Feng, and Ying Tian. “Reproductive Endocrine-Disrupting Effects of Triclosan: Population Exposure, Present Evidence and Potential Mechanisms.” Environmental Pollution, vol. 206, Nov. 2015, pp. 195–201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.07.001.

Ginsberg, Gary L., and Sophie J. Balk. “Consumer Products as Sources of Chemical Exposures to Children.” Current Opinion in Pediatrics, vol. 28, no. 2, Apr. 2016, pp. 235–242, https://doi.org/10.1097/mop.0000000000000329. 

Buth, Jeffrey M., et al. “Dioxin Photoproducts of Triclosan and Its Chlorinated Derivatives in Sediment Cores.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 44, no. 12, 15 June 2010, pp. 4545–4551, sludgenews.org/resources/documents/Buth_Dioxin-Triclosan.pdf, https://doi.org/10.1021/es1001105. 

Christopher, M. M., et al. “Propylene Glycol Ingestion Causes D-Lactic Acidosis.” Laboratory Investigation; a Journal of Technical Methods and Pathology, vol. 62, no. 1, 1 Jan. 1990, pp. 114–118, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2296157/. 

Yang, Qi, et al. “Analysis of Pre-Existing IgG and IgM Antibodies against Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) in the General Population.” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 88, no. 23, 16 Nov. 2016, pp. 11804–11812, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03437.

The best organic diapers are not only safe for the environment but also safe for your baby. But, it is challenging to pick the best diaper brand when every other brand touts their diaper as the safest. Today, there are two sustainable diaper options - cloth diapers and disposable diapers. These two diapers help in two ways; reduce the buildup of diapers in landfills and protect your baby from the harsh chemicals, such as chlorine, in conventional diapers.

With the organic diapers, your baby will not suffer the chemicals' effects, and the environment will thank you for it. Cloth diapers are baby-friendly and environment-friendly, but although they might be the best natural diapers, they are not mum-friendly, which is why organic diapers rock.

When shopping for diapers, only go for a chemical-free diaper (watch out for chemicals such as parabens, phthalates, and chlorine), synthetic fragrance-free, and free of dyes. Again, ensure that all the materials used to make the diaper are natural or organic and are biodegradable.

Besides making the environment unsightly, these disposable diapers contain chemical ingredients that could harm the environment, animals, and human beings. According to the Real Diaper Association, some components include polyethylene, petroleum, gelling material, perfume, and polypropylene. They also have non-renewable petroleum products.

Some of the disposable diapers contain chemicals that might lead to the release of dioxin into the environment. Dioxin is a toxin linked to cancer and health concerns in fetuses. ​

Davidson, Laurel. “The Only Way to Change Diapers Is One Baby at a Time. Real Diaper Association.” Real Diaper Association, 14 May 2015, realdiapers.org/diaper-facts.

World Health Organization. “Dioxins and Their Effects on Human Health.” Who.int, World Health Organization, 4 Oct. 2016, www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dioxins-and-their-effects-on-human-health.

Manikkam, Mohan, et al. “Dioxin (TCDD) Induces Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Adult Onset Disease and Sperm Epimutations.” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 9, 26 Sept. 2012, p. e46249, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046249. Accessed 12 Mar. 2019.

“Chlorine “Allergy.”” ACAAI Public Website, 15 Jan. 2015, acaai.org/allergies/types/allergy-myths/chlorine-allergy.

Steinemann, Anne. “Fragranced Consumer Products: Exposures and Effects from Emissions.” Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, vol. 9, no. 8, 20 Oct. 2016, pp. 861–866, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-016-0442-z.

Spencer, P., et al. “Neurotoxic Fragrance Produces Ceroid and Myelin Disease.” Science, vol. 204, no. 4393, 11 May 1979, pp. 633–635, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.432669. Accessed 13 Nov. 2019.

​Kazemi, Zahra, et al. “Evaluation of Pollutants in Perfumes, Colognes and Health Effects on the Consumer: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering, vol. 20, no. 1, 3 Feb. 2022, pp. 589–598, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40201-021-00783-x.

One of the most remarkable features of SneakPeek is its ability to deliver accurate results as early as 6 weeks into gestation. If you're eager to know your baby's gender before the traditional ultrasound, SneakPeek has you covered. Plus, if you're not quite at 6 weeks yet, simply keep the unopened test kit – it remains usable for up to a year after purchase.

SneakPeek stands by the accuracy of its testing method. In the rare event that your test result does not align with the gender of your newborn baby, SneakPeek offers a full refund. Your satisfaction and confidence in the results are of utmost importance.