Grime time

Scott Clouder looks at some of the most popular household cleaners.

The cleaning products sector is awash with brands, but dominated by just two companies - Unilever and Procter & Gamble. Both are still the targets of boycott campaigns by anti-vivisection groups. The growth in animal testing (see later) is partly due to the competition to find more, different products to do essentially the same job - cleaning a surface. Now cleaners are marketed as being 'especially formulated' for the bathroom or kitchen sink, when there is scant difference between the cleaning requirements of the two areas. Buying one type of multi-surface cleaner for all household jobs is generally preferable to using various so-called specialist products, because at least there is only one type of chemical cocktail for your home to contend with.

WHAT'S IN THE BOTTLE?

The most common ingredient (up to 90%) of general-purpose cleaners is water. When this excess water is transported, energy and packaging is wasted and more solid waste is created for our landfills. Concentrated products in smaller bottles will be a better option.(1) Household cleaners are formulated from a wide range of ingredients, but mainly contain surfactants (detergents) which help remove grease and dirt, allowing them to disperse in water. Surfactants can be naturally derived from vegetable substances, although many big brands use petroleum derivatives such as the much-criticised Sodium Lauryl Sulphate. Petroleum-based surfactants are derived from a non-renewable resource and often biodegrade more slowly and incompletely than vegetable-based ones. Furthermore, during the degradation process they can form compounds that are even more dangerous than the original chemicals themselves.(2) A general claim of "biodegradable" on the label is misleading, because all such products are 'biodegradable'; the question is how readily do the elements biodegrade? This point could be a difference between products breaking down in hours or days, rather than partially over months or years. Surface active agents, cleaning agents, soil suspending agents, grease cutters and grease removers are often just clever names for petroleum-based surfactants. To combat this, the UK, along with various other European governments, discussed a chemicals strategy which would enforce the full "right to know" about what chemicals are present in products.

TOXIC INGREDIENTS

The chemicals strategy was devised because some household cleaners may contain toxic chemicals, such as those which build up in body tissue and the environment. Other measures discussed were a deadline by which all chemicals on the market must have had their safety independently assessed - with all uses of each chemicals to be demonstrated as safe beyond reasonable doubt. The strategy also included a phase-out of persistent or bio-accumulative chemicals and a commitment to stop all releases of hazardous substances into the environment, but not until 2020.

In December 2001, the UK government produced a position paper on the developing EU Chemicals Strategy, stating that hormone disrupting chemicals and very persistent chemicals which build up in body tissue and the environment should be authorised for specific uses. The paper does not support a phase-out of these or other groups of toxic chemicals, nor does it insist that safer alternatives should be substituted where they exist.(4) This creates a government position which seems to allow household cleaner manufacturers to continue including toxic and potentially toxic chemicals in their products. Mathew Wilkinson, a spokesperson for the NGO coalition that supports the chemical phase-out, said: "Many of the chemicals we are concerned about are found in everyday household products and build up in the body. This means it will be extremely difficult to get rid of them in the future and by the time science is able to prove that they are dangerous to human and animal health it may be too late. The Government has failed by ignoring the precautionary principle and not committing to phasing out these chemicals."(5) New legislation on chemical production is currently being drafted by the European Commission for publication later this year. Either way, the legislation requires product testing - which often means vivisection. Already a debate is opening up between animal rights organisations and environmentalists, who see this animal testing as a 'necessary evil' in order to get the chemicals banned.

ANIMAL TESTING

In 2000, toxicity tests on animals for household products rose by an enormous 264% on the previous year, to 1,242 UK procedures.(6) Many more of the household products (and ingredients) bought by British consumers will have been animal tested outside the UK. The BUAV website features household products and categorises them according to the manufacturers' statements on animal testing. Wendy Higgins of the BUAV states: "The companies (listed) are not endorsed by the BUAV, unlike with our Humane Cosmetics Standard when companies are audited to check their statements are true. Currently no scheme exists like the HCS for household products. That's why the BUAV is preparing to launch the Humane Household Product Scheme later this year. This will prove whether or not the companies are telling the truth about their corporate practice. It will mean that companies must have a fixed-cut-off date to comply, and they must agree to be independently audited so that we can be assured that their fixed-cut-off date is actually implemented throughout their supply chain."(7)

Ecover's position on animal testing demonstrates the variety of approaches and unfortunately, appears to polarise issues into environmental progress versus animal rights. Ecover claims that the only way it can introduce products that are even less harmful to the environment is to introduce newly-developed ingredients (the example it gives being biosurfacants). Such ingredients have to be tested on animals by law, and this is how Ecover justifies its 'five-year rolling rule' as opposed to 'fixed cut off date' in terms of animal testing.(8) However, other companies that position themselves in the environmentally-friendly market appear to manage to create new products whilst using a fixed-cut-off date.

References

1 Greenseal Choose Green Report: General Purpose Cleaners
2 http://www.espesp.com/consumertips.htm
3 Good Shopping Guide, EMG, 2002
4 Greenpeace press release 10/12/2002
5 ibid
6 BUAV Dirty Secrets report
7 Email from BUAV 21/01/03
8 Ecover animal testing policy
9 Email from ECOVER 18/3/02 Guardian 5/10/02
10 Guardian 5/10/02
11 Guardian 23/11/02
12 Ecologist Dec 00/Jan 01
13 Labour Research 1/8/02