Product Review: JULBO Looping Sunglasses for Baby and Toddler

Is this also phthalate and BPA free?

I just received these glasses a few days ago for my daughter. LOVE THEM! She looks so cute in them, and I feel good that her eyes are being protected.

Thanks for the recommendation ladies!

Hi Safbaby,

It turns out that Julbo glasses are *not* BPA-free. I paste in below the e-mail reply I got this morning from Julbo.

Allow me to comment that I don’t see the justification for Julbo’s claim (in the e-mail below) that their polycarbonate lenses “may contain low levels of BPA,” given that BPA is in fact a building block of polycarbonate. From Wikipedia:

“The most common type of polycarbonate plastic is made from bisphenol A (BPA).[2] This polycarbonate is a very durable material, and can be laminated to make bullet-proof “glass”, though “bullet-resistant” would be more accurate. Although polycarbonate has high impact-resistance, it has low scratch-resistance and so a hard coating is applied to polycarbonate eyewear lenses and polycarbonate exterior automotive components. The characteristics of polycarbonate are quite like those of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA; acrylic), but polycarbonate is stronger, usable in a larger temperature range and more expensive. This polymer is highly transparent to visible light and has better light transmission characteristics than many kinds of glass. CR-39 is a specific polycarbonate material — although it is usually referred to as CR-39 plastic — with good optical and mechanical properties, frequently used for eyeglass lenses.”

Jilbo doesn’t explain how their polycarbonate has reduced levels of BPA. These facts are autonomous from any claim that BPA is actually harmful, which is a separate debate. I present them just to correct the statement that the glasses are BPA-free. The *frames* are, while the lenses contain BPA. While some of Jilbo’s competitors make the frames out of polycarbonate, traditionally, plastic-like sunglass frames are made of nylon. The bottom line is, to single out Julbo glasses as non-toxic is misleading at best. According to the info Julbo provides, it seems they are making glasses out of the same materials as many, if not most, other sunglasses companies. And one guesses that some cheaper glasses’ lenses are probably made of CR-39, which is not as lightweight or as durable as polycarbonate, but does not contain BPA. The question is whether parents need to spend extra $$ in the case of sunglasses in order to get “non-toxic.”

At any rate, here’s the e-mail reply from Julbo: *** Hi Kim, The frames on all glasses are BPA free, in the junior models they are also completely paint free in anticipation that young children will chew on the frames. The lenses are optical class one polycarbonate lenses for maximum protection of young eyes (in the smaller age ranges actually the same lens we use in our high altitude models). Polycabonate lenses may indeed contain low levels of BPA the lenses are coated with a scratch resistant coating and in some cases a flash coating or AG coating which conceals the raw lens. I hope this helps clarify the situation, if you have any more questions please let me know. All the best, Nick Steve Robinson Julbo Inc 25 Omega Drive; Ste 150 Williston, VT 05495 P: 800-651-0833 F: 802-651-0986 http://www.julbousa.com

–Kim S.

Dear Safbaby,

Thanks for your response and the clarification. Though I’m no chemist, I’ve gleaned that what some people are calling “BPA-free polycarbonate” is in fact Tritan, which is not really a polycarbonate but something else, called a copolyester (this is what the new Nalgene water bottles are made of). Perhaps Julbo is using that, and if so their glasses would indeed be BPA-free. Though this isn’t what he initially told me. Also unhelpfully confusing was Mr. Robinson’s (or Nick’s) description of the BPA as low-level; it seems what they meant is that the lenses have a coating on them. But since all polycarbonate glasses lenses do, to emphasize it as a green marketing point seems slightly misleading. And that, for me, is what this all boils down to. If any other parents out there are like me, they want to know whether they need to pay a premium for non-toxic, and they can only make that decision themselves if companies are straightforward in disclosing and fair in representing their materials. This Julbo confusion seems to have been merely a misunderstanding, so I don’t mean these comments to imply that Julbo or Mr. Robinson was intentionally deceitful.

Incidentally, you & your readers might also be interested to know that BabyBanz, which sells sunglasses similar to Julbo’s will not disclose their lenses’ (or frames’) material at all except to say it’s “BPA-polycarbonate.” Does that mean it’s Tritan? I’ve asked, but they won’t tell me. As of last week, they were presenting on their website a lab report showing that their frames had been tested and were BPA-free, and they claimed over e-mail that their lenses are made out of the same material. But they will not reveal the specific chemical makeup of their glasses, citing trade secrets. Frustrating, if you ask me. Why is this secrecy important? If one is worried about BPA and chemicals in general, it’s logical to want to know what the darn glasses are made of. (Note that Tritan is itself brand new and thus not very thoroughly safety-tested.)

I have no answers here, but I think more info is better than less when it comes to making purchasing decisions, and I think it would be great if parents felt empowered to ask questions and to hold companies to their marketing promises to be non-toxic. There’s a lot of potential for greenwashing here and, given that these are children’s products, the potential for consumers to be manipulated by their own very natural desires to protect their kids.

Thanks again for following up with Julbo.

Oops, allow me two corrections: BabyBanz says its glasses are made of “BPA-free polycarbonate,” not “BPA-polycarbonate.” Sorry. Also, I mention CR-39 above, & just wanted to note that I’ve since learned that no kids’ sunglasses can legally be made out of this, b/c it shatters too easily. Thanks again.

By the way, Mike, it’s truly remarkable that you would happen upon this originally 4-month-old conversation just as it revived over the past 2 weeks.
Like, here you are, on SAFBABY.com, asking parents, “Why worry about the very kind and on-the-up-and-up chemical industry?–when really what you need to do is protect your kids from big guns & ammo at close range?” (statistically a very common form of death, I’m sure). Imagine the odds of your finding this thread. I’m just curious…are you a disinterested scientist? Do you follow the Julbo company as a hobby? Which would be fine; I’m not here to criticize.
PS: If you think parents who seek out products that won’t possibly help their little charges become infertile or perhaps grow a huge tumor by age 50 are suckers, don’t you think the companies you seem to be defending stoop lower by trying to winkle $$ out of them with claims like “BPA free!” If the whole enterprise is so ridiculous, why not take it out on the companies who advertise “green” products? They, as they say, started it.

Mike, If you knew me, I’m sure you’d find that I pass all of your tests for non-panicked parenting status. I was ready to buy some $3 old-season Old Navy glasses from an eBay seller, then thought maybe since the baby will wear them daily for a long time I should try to get the least toxic product possible (same principle as the mattress, the toothpaste, the water bottle: the basics should be as clean as possible). If you can afford $30+ baby sunglasses, then I think you have the luxury not to research or even think that much about your purchases–get them from a reputable co., and that presumably will mean there’s no lead or other junk in them. Others fret more about the possibility that the cheaper alternative will mean more exposure than necessary to heavy metals or bpa or what have you. To say we have no control over chemical exposure, you must be a purist. Others think less is better than more. But regardless of all of the above, my point in participating in this conversation, as I thought I’d made clear above, was that greenwashing is really lame and low-down. If the $30 sunglasses want to brag that they don’t contain a particular chemical, I expect that they in fact won’t. If sun-heated BPA just above the bridge of one’s nose is toxic in the long term, I’d rather my son be poisoned by the $3 glasses than the $30 ones. That way, at least he’ll have more money to pay for health care. –Kim