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