Widely-used scented consumer products that claim to be "green," "organic" or "natural" emit just as many toxic chemicals as other fragranced products, new research shows.
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.
More than a third of the samples gave off one chemical classified as a probable carcinogen by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, according to the research, published in the journal
Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 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.
"Products with 'organic fragrance,' 'natural fragrance,' and 'essential oils' emitted just as many toxic chemicals," she said. "Basically, if it had any kind of fragrance or scent, it emitted toxic chemicals."
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.
For consumers who want to avoid the chemicals, Steinemann suggests going back to basics:
Cleaning with vinegar and baking soda, opening windows for ventilation instead of using air
fresheners and using products without any fragrance.
But she cautioned that products called "fragrance-free" and "unscented" are not necessarily nontoxic. 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. And as counterintuitive as this sounds, "even a 'fragrance-free'' or 'unscented' product can nonetheless be a fragranced product with the addition of a masking fragrance to cover the scent," she said.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
EHANS
Triclosan + tap water = chloroform
More hazards of antibacterial products
Update Fall 2008
Danger: Creates chloroform when mixed with tap water.
If consumers of antibacterial products saw this warning on the label of their anti-bacterial soap, shaving cream, toothpaste or cleaning liquids, or heard it in a TV ad, it is unlikely that so many anti-bacterial products would find their way into our homes. But labels and advertisements don’t tell consumers all they need to know to protect their health.
Research into Triclosan, the most common anti-bacterial chemical used in consumer products, documented that Triclosan reacts with chlorine in tap water to form significant quantities of chloroform. Chloroform is classified as a probable human carcinogen.
Researchers at Virginia Polytechnic and State University estimate that under some conditions the use of triclosan can increase a person’s annual exposure to chloroform by as much as 40% above background levels in tap water. Research results from two studies were published in 2005 and 2007.
So what does a person do if they are concerned about germs? Regular soap and water does just as good a job as antibacterial products – without the risks, according to University of Michigan Department of Public Health professor Dr. Allison Aiello. Vinegar and water is also highly effective in killing germs.
Update, Fall 2008, Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
At ISSA, IEHA Unveils ‘Clean and Healthy Schools for Dummies’
WESTERVILLE, OH -- The International Executive Housekeepers Association is unveiling Clean and Healthy Schools For Dummies at ISSA/INTERCLEAN North America 2010 in Orlando, FL this week.
Authored by Dr. David Mudarri, former senior scientist with the U.S. EPA, Clean and Healthy Schools For Dummies is a 48-page pocket-sized handbook designed to assist both K-12 and higher education facilities to develop and maintain healthy schools.
This latest of IEHA’s For Dummies books helps explain how to achieve a cost-effective cleaning and maintenance program resulting in a healthy, high-efficiency school that boosts attendance as well as student and staff performance,” said Beth Risinger, CEO and Executive Director of IEHA. “It also encourages IEHA members and the cleaning industry at large to explore modern cleaning technologies such as activated water, steam vapor cleaning, and newer floor and restroom cleaning machines among other innovations.”
Clean and Healthy Schools For Dummies shows how to identify indoor pollutants and remove them, how to make a scientific case for cleaning and maintaining schools, and how to get community support for a healthy schools program,” adds the author, David Mudarri, Ph.D.
The title follows on the heels of the success of Infection Control For Dummies, by Darrel Hicks, REH (now in its second printing as Infection Prevention For Dummies). Both books will be available at ISSA/INTERCLEAN at IEHA Booths 3783 and 3874.
Clean and Healthy Schools For Dummies is sponsored by the Healthy Schools Campaign (HSC) and Activeion Cleaning Solutions.
IEHA gratefully acknowledges their generous support of this valuable educational resource.
Authored by Dr. David Mudarri, former senior scientist with the U.S. EPA, Clean and Healthy Schools For Dummies is a 48-page pocket-sized handbook designed to assist both K-12 and higher education facilities to develop and maintain healthy schools.
This latest of IEHA’s For Dummies books helps explain how to achieve a cost-effective cleaning and maintenance program resulting in a healthy, high-efficiency school that boosts attendance as well as student and staff performance,” said Beth Risinger, CEO and Executive Director of IEHA. “It also encourages IEHA members and the cleaning industry at large to explore modern cleaning technologies such as activated water, steam vapor cleaning, and newer floor and restroom cleaning machines among other innovations.”
Clean and Healthy Schools For Dummies shows how to identify indoor pollutants and remove them, how to make a scientific case for cleaning and maintaining schools, and how to get community support for a healthy schools program,” adds the author, David Mudarri, Ph.D.
The title follows on the heels of the success of Infection Control For Dummies, by Darrel Hicks, REH (now in its second printing as Infection Prevention For Dummies). Both books will be available at ISSA/INTERCLEAN at IEHA Booths 3783 and 3874.
Clean and Healthy Schools For Dummies is sponsored by the Healthy Schools Campaign (HSC) and Activeion Cleaning Solutions.
IEHA gratefully acknowledges their generous support of this valuable educational resource.
Wednesday, December 29, 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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
