Will it all come out in the wash?
Katy Brown airs the detergent industry's dirty laundry
Animal testing
Animal testing for household products is not a legal requirement in the
UK. Despite there being plenty of more-than-adequate laundry detergents
and other household products on the market, new ingredients for such products
are constantly being developed and tested on animals. In recent years new
enzymes, optical brighteners, surfactants (which cut through grease to remove
ingrained dirt) and chemical 'builders' (which act as water softeners and
enable surfactants to work more effectively) have been developed for use
in washing powders and liquids.
The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV)
believes that the arguments in favour of a ban on testing for household
products closely mirror those for a ban on testing for cosmetics. According
to Alistair Currie, Campaigns Director at BUAV, "The number of animal experiments
conducted in the UK for Household Product purposes fluctuates wildly each
year. In 2004 only 272 animals were used, which represents only a very small
number of total animal experiments overall."(9)
However it's an area that people can avoid, purely by choosing
to buy household products that have not been tested on animals. The BUAV
has introduced a Humane Household Products Standard (HHPS) and companies
signed up must abide by the BUAV's strict No Animal Testing policy and have
a 'fixed cut off date.' Of the products on the table, Astonish, Clear Spring
and ECOS are signed up to the HHPS. Bio-D receives ECRA's best rating as
it has a fixed cut off date too. Both Ecover and ACDO receive ECRA's middle
rating as they have a five-year rolling policy i.e. they only exclude ingredients
which have been animal tested within the last five years. Market leaders
Procter & Gamble and Unilever both receive ECRA's worst rating and are subject
to boycott calls as they commission animal experiments.
Chemical cocktails
Behind the heavily-marketed 'whiter than white' and 'fresh smelling' language
of the big-brand laundry detergents lurks a dubious cocktail of chemicals.
Artificial musks for example, responsible for the fragrance in some laundry
products, are persistent and bio-accumulative and have been linked to hormone
disruption(1) and liver damage.(2) Phthalates, which may be used
to make a fragrance last, are considered to be widespread contaminants linked
to hormone disruption, birth defects,(1) kidney, liver and testicular
damage.(2) Both phthalates and artificial musks are difficult to
avoid because they don't have to be listed on the label.(2,12)
Detergents can also contain alkylphenols which can affect
fertility, damage the immune system and increase likelihood of genetic abnormalities
during pregnancy.(2)
Greenpeace Chemical Home
The European Chemicals Bureau has produced a list of chemicals "of Very
High Concern".(2) Greenpeace has identified frequently used household
products containing these chemicals and has contacted companies to ask them
if and when they plan to start phasing out these chemicals from their products.
Greenpeace then rated these products and companies. Procter & Gamble receives
a 'Red' (worst) rating for Ariel, Bold, Daz and Fairy, and for the company
as a whole. Unilever receives an 'Amber' (middle) rating for its Persil
and Surf products. The company's detergents can contain alkylphenols, synthetic
musks and phthalates. However, world-wide, its household products do not
contain nitro musks, and synthetic polycyclic musks are to be phased out
(its European product is already free from polycyclic musks.) All phthalates
have been eliminated except for DEP which is to be discontinued. The company
as a whole however receives a 'Red' rating as it has not yet eliminated
phthalates and musks from its perfumes. Ecover receives a 'Green' (best)
rating for the whole company.
None of the other companies listed on the table were featured
in the Greenpeace research, however Bio-D has banned the following substances
from its products: petroleum-derived additives, chlorine bleaches, phosphates,
enzymes and optical brighteners. Faith Products has banned optical whiteners,
bleach, phosphates and enzymes. Earth Friendly Products has banned phosphates,
chlorine and petroleum chemicals from its products as well as a variety
of other harmful ingredients which are listed on its website.
Environmental pollution
Chemicals which are harmful to human health are also usually hazardous to
the environment. The manufacture of some surfactants emits benzene, a known
carcinogen, whilst other surfactants are toxic to aquatic organisms and
many are slow to biodegrade.(13) Optical brighteners may be toxic
to aquatic organisms. Phosphates found in many detergents can cause pollution
to rivers and waterways which harms aquatic life.(13)
Environmental legislation
Under the most recent EU legislation, the Detergent Regulations 2005, manufacturers
are now required to label their products more informatively for consumers,
with a website address with further information. This is something we have
been asking for, for many years, although it it still difficult to get the
level of detail needed to make fully informed decisions. A study is currently
under way in the EU on the environmental impacts of phosphates from detergents.
It will be completed in 2007.
Links
BUAV's The Little Book of Cruelty-Free: Free from BUAV, 16a Crane
Grove, London N7 8NN Tel: 020 7700 4888 Email: info@buav.org or online at
www.buav.org/gocrueltyfree.
More information can also be found at the BUAV Household Products Campaign
website www.buav.org/campaigns/household/index.html
Greenpeace Chemical Home: www.greenpeace.org.uk/Products/Toxics/chemicalhouse.cfm
Greenpeace, Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN Tel: 020 7865 8100 Email info@uk.greenpeace.org.
References
1 www.groundwork.org.za/resources/laundry.asp viewed 01/03/06
2
www.greenpeace.org.uk/Products/Toxics/chemicalhouse.cfm viewed 01/03/06
5 www.off-grid.net viewed 01/03/06
6 icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/richlist
viewed 01/03/06
7 Animal Times: Summer 2005 8 Mugged: Poverty
in your coffee cup, Oxfam, 2002
9 www.buav.org viewed 01/03/06
10
Corporate Watch newsletter: issue 25 (Aug/Sept 2005)
11 Power Hungry-
six reasons to regulate global food corporations: ActionAid report (2005)
12 www.wen.org.uk/cosmetics/prettynasty.htm 01/03/06
13 www.noharm.org/details.cfm?type=document&id=1171
viewed 01/03/06