Some Toxic and possibly carcinogenic substances are not listed on the label
The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday November 9, 2010 – By Wendy Koch
Popular scented products – including those claiming to be “green” – Emit chemicals not listed on the label, including some considered toxic and possibly carcinogenic, a study says.
Each of the 25 tested products emitted at least one chemical classified as toxic or hazardous under U.S. law, and 11 gave off at least one chemical listed as a possible carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to the study published online in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review.
Lead author Anne Steinemann, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Washington, says her study is the first to look at fragranced products.
The products emitted a total of 133 chemicals, about 17 each. But only ethanol was listed on labels. Manufacturers are not required to list ingredients in fragrances. A bill pending in the United States Senate would require it.
Half of the products tested made claims about being “green, organic or natural,” but “they emitted just as many toxic chemicals,” Steinemann said.
The study analyzed top-selling air fresheners, laundry products including detergents, and personal-care products such as soaps and cleaning products. It does not disclose brand names. “We don’t want to give people the impression that if we reported on product ‘A’ and they buy product ‘B,’ they’re safe,” said Steinemann. “The whole class is problematic.”
The researchers placed a sample of each product in a closed glass container at room temperature and tested the air for volatile organic compounds. Because product formulations are proprietary, they couldn’t determine whether a chemical came from the product base, the added fragrance or both.
The most common chemical was citrus-scented limonene, which Steinemann says can mix with air to create formaldehyde. Also emitted from at least half were three chemicals classified as toxic: pine-smelling alpha–pinene; ethanol; and acetone, a solvent in nail polis remover. “Yes, it’s low-level exposure, but low levels add up,” she said, adding the EPA sets no safe limit for many of the chemicals detected.
The International Fragrance Association North America says the report “unnecessarily alarms the public with insinuations of danger.” It says most materials can be toxic in high concentrations. The study does not discuss health effects, but two national surveys last year by Steinemann found 20 percent of people reported health problems from air fresheners; 10 per cent from laundry products. Complaints were twice as common in people with asthma. She suggests people clean with vinegar and baking soda, open windows for ventilation and use unscented products.
McClatchy – Tribune Newspapers
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Canadian meat, poultry plants dirty: U.S. audit
The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday November 9, 2010
Canadian Food Inspection Agency documents often painted an inaccurate picture of the conditions at some of Canada’s meat and poultry plants where sanitation problems persisted, an American audit has found.
A recently released audit by the United States Department of Agriculture’s inspection service revealed several areas of “systemic concern,” though the report notes the Canadian agency has taken significant steps to correct problems.
The audit, which looked at 23 of the 455 establishments certified to export to the U.S. between August 25 and October 1, 2009, identified weaknesses particularly in the areas of sanitation, oversight and record keeping.
A review of manuals and procedures at the food inspection agency’s administrative offices found acceptable controls for sanitation, but auditors found a different story at some plants.
“The actual conditions of these establishment visits were often not entirely consistent with the corresponding documentation,” the report says.
Among the sanitation issues flagged were: not consistently identifying contaminated product and inconsistently verifying that plants were taking adequate corrective actions to problems. “This audit is from a year ago and in that time our government has invested an additional $75 million to improve food safety and are hiring 170 new inspectors” Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said Monday.
The head of the food inspection agency’s meat programs division said Canadian inspectors found similar problems when they visited American meat plants. Richard Arsenault said the U.S. auditors interpreted the requirements differently from Canadian authorities. “Essentially, I think what we had was a situation where the facilities were generally, with very small issues, in full compliance with our requirements,” Arsenault said in an interview Monday. He said the U.S. assessment was that some things were not “appropriate” for a plant eligible for the United States.
The Canadian Press
Canadian Food Inspection Agency documents often painted an inaccurate picture of the conditions at some of Canada’s meat and poultry plants where sanitation problems persisted, an American audit has found.
A recently released audit by the United States Department of Agriculture’s inspection service revealed several areas of “systemic concern,” though the report notes the Canadian agency has taken significant steps to correct problems.
The audit, which looked at 23 of the 455 establishments certified to export to the U.S. between August 25 and October 1, 2009, identified weaknesses particularly in the areas of sanitation, oversight and record keeping.
A review of manuals and procedures at the food inspection agency’s administrative offices found acceptable controls for sanitation, but auditors found a different story at some plants.
“The actual conditions of these establishment visits were often not entirely consistent with the corresponding documentation,” the report says.
Among the sanitation issues flagged were: not consistently identifying contaminated product and inconsistently verifying that plants were taking adequate corrective actions to problems. “This audit is from a year ago and in that time our government has invested an additional $75 million to improve food safety and are hiring 170 new inspectors” Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said Monday.
The head of the food inspection agency’s meat programs division said Canadian inspectors found similar problems when they visited American meat plants. Richard Arsenault said the U.S. auditors interpreted the requirements differently from Canadian authorities. “Essentially, I think what we had was a situation where the facilities were generally, with very small issues, in full compliance with our requirements,” Arsenault said in an interview Monday. He said the U.S. assessment was that some things were not “appropriate” for a plant eligible for the United States.
The Canadian Press
Monday, December 13, 2010
True Clean Has No Odour – Cleaning with Steam leaves no smell behind!
Study: Some Green Products Emit Toxins
Cleanlink News November 1 2010
According to research from the University of Washington, some popular scented consumer products that claim to be "green," "organic" or "natural" actually emit just as many toxic chemicals as other fragranced products. The study analyzed 25 scented products; about half carried green health claims. All the products emitted at least one chemical classified as toxic or hazardous, say Chicago Tribune reports.
The research, published in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review, indicates that more than a third of the samples gave off one chemical classified as a probable carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has set no safe exposure level for possible carcinogens.
Overall, the products tested emitted more than 420 chemicals, but virtually none were disclosed to consumers, said the study's lead author, Anne Steinemann, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington. A single "fragrance" in a product can be a mixture of up to several hundred ingredients. But since manufacturers are not required to disclose all ingredients in cosmetics, cleaning supplies, air fresheners or laundry products, the majority of the chemicals are not listed on the labels.
The most common emissions the researchers found included limonene, a compound with a citrus scent; apha-pinene and beta-pinene, compounds with a pine scent; ethanol; and acetone, a solvent found in nail polish remover.
Brand names were not included in the data to avoid leaving the impression that products other than the ones reported in the study were safer. "We found potentially hazardous chemicals in all of the fragranced products we tested," said Steinemann.
While the study confirmed the ubiquitous presence of the chemicals, it doesn't look at whether the products are safe to use. Studies conducted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials maintain that the ingredients are safe. But previous research by Steinemann and a colleague showed that nearly 38 percent of Americans report adverse effects when exposed to some kind of fragranced products. Among asthmatics, such complaints were roughly twice as common.
The Household Product Labeling Act, currently being reviewed by the U.S. Senate, would require manufacturers to list ingredients in air fresheners, soaps, laundry supplies and other consumer products. Steinemann cautioned that products called "fragrance-free" and "unscented" are not necessarily non-toxic. The chemicals identified in the study could have been part of the added fragrance, the product base, or both; product formulations are confidential so the researchers had no way of discerning the source. Moreover, even if a product doesn't have a scent, it could still contain chemicals that are classified as toxic.
Cleanlink News November 1 2010
According to research from the University of Washington, some popular scented consumer products that claim to be "green," "organic" or "natural" actually emit just as many toxic chemicals as other fragranced products. The study analyzed 25 scented products; about half carried green health claims. All the products emitted at least one chemical classified as toxic or hazardous, say Chicago Tribune reports.
The research, published in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review, indicates that more than a third of the samples gave off one chemical classified as a probable carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has set no safe exposure level for possible carcinogens.
Overall, the products tested emitted more than 420 chemicals, but virtually none were disclosed to consumers, said the study's lead author, Anne Steinemann, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Washington. A single "fragrance" in a product can be a mixture of up to several hundred ingredients. But since manufacturers are not required to disclose all ingredients in cosmetics, cleaning supplies, air fresheners or laundry products, the majority of the chemicals are not listed on the labels.
The most common emissions the researchers found included limonene, a compound with a citrus scent; apha-pinene and beta-pinene, compounds with a pine scent; ethanol; and acetone, a solvent found in nail polish remover.
Brand names were not included in the data to avoid leaving the impression that products other than the ones reported in the study were safer. "We found potentially hazardous chemicals in all of the fragranced products we tested," said Steinemann.
While the study confirmed the ubiquitous presence of the chemicals, it doesn't look at whether the products are safe to use. Studies conducted by the Research Institute for Fragrance Materials maintain that the ingredients are safe. But previous research by Steinemann and a colleague showed that nearly 38 percent of Americans report adverse effects when exposed to some kind of fragranced products. Among asthmatics, such complaints were roughly twice as common.
The Household Product Labeling Act, currently being reviewed by the U.S. Senate, would require manufacturers to list ingredients in air fresheners, soaps, laundry supplies and other consumer products. Steinemann cautioned that products called "fragrance-free" and "unscented" are not necessarily non-toxic. The chemicals identified in the study could have been part of the added fragrance, the product base, or both; product formulations are confidential so the researchers had no way of discerning the source. Moreover, even if a product doesn't have a scent, it could still contain chemicals that are classified as toxic.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Study probes chemicals / cancer link
Newton, MA – One day after the release of a study linking cleaning compounds and pesticides to behavioural disorders in children, the non-profit research group Silent Spring Institute (SSI) says it will prepare a study to develop guidelines for testing of chemicals found in household cleaners and furniture finishes that may cause breast caner in women.
The study will compile a list of chemicals already identified as causing mammary tumors in animals and will develop guidelines for how additional chemicals should be tested.
About 100 compounds have been identified as priorities for breast cancer research because they cause mammary tumors in animals. Researchers suspect human breast cancer may be related to these compounds, pollutants found in household products, including some cleaners, furniture finishes, and pesticides.
“This new study is designed to search out the causes of breast cancer, offering hope that we will one day find ways to prevent this disease,” says Dr. Julia Brody, SSI executive director.
The study is being funded by a $30,000 donation from the Law Offices of James Sokolove.
“With breast cancer affecting one out of eight women, we need to take more aggressive steps to eradicate the disease,” says Sokolove. “As a husband and father, I am committed to supporting organizations examining environmental links to cancer and especially breast cancer.”
Copyright 2000 National Trade Publications, Inc.
The study will compile a list of chemicals already identified as causing mammary tumors in animals and will develop guidelines for how additional chemicals should be tested.
About 100 compounds have been identified as priorities for breast cancer research because they cause mammary tumors in animals. Researchers suspect human breast cancer may be related to these compounds, pollutants found in household products, including some cleaners, furniture finishes, and pesticides.
“This new study is designed to search out the causes of breast cancer, offering hope that we will one day find ways to prevent this disease,” says Dr. Julia Brody, SSI executive director.
The study is being funded by a $30,000 donation from the Law Offices of James Sokolove.
“With breast cancer affecting one out of eight women, we need to take more aggressive steps to eradicate the disease,” says Sokolove. “As a husband and father, I am committed to supporting organizations examining environmental links to cancer and especially breast cancer.”
Copyright 2000 National Trade Publications, Inc.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Report links cleaning agents to disorders
HARRISBURG, PA – Cleaning compounds and pesticides are among the chemicals listed in a report linked to developmental disabilities, including behavioural and learning disabilities.
The Clean Water Fund and Physicians for Social Responsibility released May 11 “In Harms W,” a study of lead, mercury, cadmium, and manganese; pesticides; dioxins and PCBs; solvents used in gasoline, glues and cleaning solutions; and nicotine and alcohol.
The report found that one million children in the United States now exceed the accepted level above which lead affects behaviour and cognition. The report also found that over 80 percent of adults and 90 percent of children in the United States have residues of one or more harmful pesticides in their bodies.
“it is critical that we understand and, as a matter of public policy, address the impactof these neurotoxic chemicals on developmental and learning disabilities,” says Dr. Ted Schettler, a practicing physician and one of the report’s co-authors. “The urgency of this issue is underscored by the dact that between 5 percent and 10 percent of school children in America have learning disabilities, and at least an equivalent amount have ADHD,” (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder).
The concerns raised by this report suggest the need for a new precautionary approach that protects the health of future generations by reducing exposure to these neurotoxicants, says Robert Wendelgaa, Pennsylvania director of Clean Water Fund.
One place we can start is by passing state legislation that would reduce the use of pesticides in our schools, making sure that the school environment doesn’t put our children in harm’s way.”
Copyright 2000 National Tradre Publications, Inc.
The Clean Water Fund and Physicians for Social Responsibility released May 11 “In Harms W,” a study of lead, mercury, cadmium, and manganese; pesticides; dioxins and PCBs; solvents used in gasoline, glues and cleaning solutions; and nicotine and alcohol.
The report found that one million children in the United States now exceed the accepted level above which lead affects behaviour and cognition. The report also found that over 80 percent of adults and 90 percent of children in the United States have residues of one or more harmful pesticides in their bodies.
“it is critical that we understand and, as a matter of public policy, address the impactof these neurotoxic chemicals on developmental and learning disabilities,” says Dr. Ted Schettler, a practicing physician and one of the report’s co-authors. “The urgency of this issue is underscored by the dact that between 5 percent and 10 percent of school children in America have learning disabilities, and at least an equivalent amount have ADHD,” (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder).
The concerns raised by this report suggest the need for a new precautionary approach that protects the health of future generations by reducing exposure to these neurotoxicants, says Robert Wendelgaa, Pennsylvania director of Clean Water Fund.
One place we can start is by passing state legislation that would reduce the use of pesticides in our schools, making sure that the school environment doesn’t put our children in harm’s way.”
Copyright 2000 National Tradre Publications, Inc.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Scented products emit harmful chemicals: study
Some Toxic and possibly carcinogenic substances are not listed on the label
The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday November 9, 2010 – By Wendy Koch
Popular scented products – including those claiming to be “green” – Emit chemicals not listed on the label, including some considered toxic and possibly carcinogenic, a study says.
Each of the 25 tested products emitted at least one chemical classified as toxic or hazardous under U.S. law, and 11 gave off at least one chemical listed as a possible carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to the study published online in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review.
Lead author Anne Steinemann, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Washington, says her study is the first to look at fragranced products.
The products emitted a total of 133 chemicals, about 17 each. But only ethanol was listed on labels. Manufacturers are not required to list ingredients in fragrances. A bill pending in the United States Senate would require it.
Half of the products tested made claims about being “green, organic or natural,” but “they emitted just as many toxic chemicals,” Steinemann said.
The study analyzed top-selling air fresheners, laundry products including detergents, and personal-care products such as soaps and cleaning products. It does not disclose brand names. “We don’t want to give people the impression that if we reported on product ‘A’ and they buy product ‘B,’ they’re safe,” said Steinemann. “The whole class is problematic.”
The researchers placed a sample of each product in a closed glass container at room temperature and tested the air for volatile organic compounds. Because product formulations are proprietary, they couldn’t determine whether a chemical came from the product base, the added fragrance or both.
The most common chemical was citrus-scented limonene, which Steinemann says can mix with air to create formaldehyde. Also emitted from at least half were three chemicals classified as toxic: pine-smelling alpha–pinene; ethanol; and acetone, a solvent in nail polis remover. “Yes, it’s low-level exposure, but low levels add up,” she said, adding the EPA sets no safe limit for many of the chemicals detected.
The International Fragrance Association North America says the report “unnecessarily alarms the public with insinuations of danger.” It says most materials can be toxic in high concentrations. The study does not discuss health effects, but two national surveys last year by Steinemann found 20 percent of people reported health problems from air fresheners; 10 per cent from laundry products. Complaints were twice as common in people with asthma. She suggests people clean with vinegar and baking soda, open windows for ventilation and use unscented products.
McClatchy – Tribune Newspapers
The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday November 9, 2010 – By Wendy Koch
Popular scented products – including those claiming to be “green” – Emit chemicals not listed on the label, including some considered toxic and possibly carcinogenic, a study says.
Each of the 25 tested products emitted at least one chemical classified as toxic or hazardous under U.S. law, and 11 gave off at least one chemical listed as a possible carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to the study published online in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review.
Lead author Anne Steinemann, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Washington, says her study is the first to look at fragranced products.
The products emitted a total of 133 chemicals, about 17 each. But only ethanol was listed on labels. Manufacturers are not required to list ingredients in fragrances. A bill pending in the United States Senate would require it.
Half of the products tested made claims about being “green, organic or natural,” but “they emitted just as many toxic chemicals,” Steinemann said.
The study analyzed top-selling air fresheners, laundry products including detergents, and personal-care products such as soaps and cleaning products. It does not disclose brand names. “We don’t want to give people the impression that if we reported on product ‘A’ and they buy product ‘B,’ they’re safe,” said Steinemann. “The whole class is problematic.”
The researchers placed a sample of each product in a closed glass container at room temperature and tested the air for volatile organic compounds. Because product formulations are proprietary, they couldn’t determine whether a chemical came from the product base, the added fragrance or both.
The most common chemical was citrus-scented limonene, which Steinemann says can mix with air to create formaldehyde. Also emitted from at least half were three chemicals classified as toxic: pine-smelling alpha–pinene; ethanol; and acetone, a solvent in nail polis remover. “Yes, it’s low-level exposure, but low levels add up,” she said, adding the EPA sets no safe limit for many of the chemicals detected.
The International Fragrance Association North America says the report “unnecessarily alarms the public with insinuations of danger.” It says most materials can be toxic in high concentrations. The study does not discuss health effects, but two national surveys last year by Steinemann found 20 percent of people reported health problems from air fresheners; 10 per cent from laundry products. Complaints were twice as common in people with asthma. She suggests people clean with vinegar and baking soda, open windows for ventilation and use unscented products.
McClatchy – Tribune Newspapers
Monday, November 15, 2010
There is no greener way of cleaning and disinfecting than using only Tap Water
Study: Misleading Green Claims in 95% of Home/Family Products
Cleanlink News October 29 2010
More than 95 per cent of consumer products claiming to be green are committing at least one of the “sins” of greenwashing, according to The Sins of Greenwashing: Home and Family Edition, released by TerraChoice, an environmental marketing company. The study also finds big box retailers stock more “green” products and more products that provide legitimate environmental certifications than smaller “green” boutique-style stores. Greenwashing is defined as the act of misleading consumers about the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service. The 2010 study reveals that greenwashing has declined slightly since 2009, with 4.5 per cent of products now “sin-free”, compared to only 2 per cent in 2009. The study also finds that marketers and product manufacturers are getting better, with greenwashing down among those who have been focused on environmentally preferable practices longer than others. The proportion of “sin- free” products is five times greater in “mature” categories like building, construction and office products than in “immature” categories like toys and baby products. “We found 73 per cent more ‘green’ products on the market today than in 2009,” said Scott McDougall, President, TerraChoice. “This is great news and it shows that consumers are changing the world by demanding greener goods and that marketers and manufacturers are taking note.” The TerraChoice study, the third since 2007, surveyed 5,296 products in the U.S. and Canada that make an environmental claim. Between March and May 2010, TerraChoice visited 19 retail stores in Canada and 15 in the United States. “The increase from just 2 per cent to 4.5 per cent may seem small, but we see it as early evidence of a positive and long lasting trend,” said McDougall. “We are also pleased with the finding that those home and family product categories that are more mature have less greenwashing and more reliable green certification.” Product categories studied in the 2010 report include baby care products, toys, office products, building and construction products, cleaning products, house wares, health and beauty products, and consumer electronics. “’Greenwashing’ is an issue that touches many industries, and education and awareness play a key role in helping to prevent it,” said Stephen Wenc, President, UL Environment. “We’re hopeful that the trends and tips identified in this study will help our business partners confidently and appropriately share their environmental achievements with their consumers.”
Cleanlink News October 29 2010
More than 95 per cent of consumer products claiming to be green are committing at least one of the “sins” of greenwashing, according to The Sins of Greenwashing: Home and Family Edition, released by TerraChoice, an environmental marketing company. The study also finds big box retailers stock more “green” products and more products that provide legitimate environmental certifications than smaller “green” boutique-style stores. Greenwashing is defined as the act of misleading consumers about the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service. The 2010 study reveals that greenwashing has declined slightly since 2009, with 4.5 per cent of products now “sin-free”, compared to only 2 per cent in 2009. The study also finds that marketers and product manufacturers are getting better, with greenwashing down among those who have been focused on environmentally preferable practices longer than others. The proportion of “sin- free” products is five times greater in “mature” categories like building, construction and office products than in “immature” categories like toys and baby products. “We found 73 per cent more ‘green’ products on the market today than in 2009,” said Scott McDougall, President, TerraChoice. “This is great news and it shows that consumers are changing the world by demanding greener goods and that marketers and manufacturers are taking note.” The TerraChoice study, the third since 2007, surveyed 5,296 products in the U.S. and Canada that make an environmental claim. Between March and May 2010, TerraChoice visited 19 retail stores in Canada and 15 in the United States. “The increase from just 2 per cent to 4.5 per cent may seem small, but we see it as early evidence of a positive and long lasting trend,” said McDougall. “We are also pleased with the finding that those home and family product categories that are more mature have less greenwashing and more reliable green certification.” Product categories studied in the 2010 report include baby care products, toys, office products, building and construction products, cleaning products, house wares, health and beauty products, and consumer electronics. “’Greenwashing’ is an issue that touches many industries, and education and awareness play a key role in helping to prevent it,” said Stephen Wenc, President, UL Environment. “We’re hopeful that the trends and tips identified in this study will help our business partners confidently and appropriately share their environmental achievements with their consumers.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
