Hazard Warning on Home Cleaners
According to the EPA, up to 85% of our exposure to pesticides comes from indoor sources
Household Cleaning Supplies - The Problem Source: National Geographic's Green Guide
Clean Goes "Green" - From The Boston Globe
University of Minnesota Cleans House
Hazard Warning on Home Cleaners
Study says many use chemicals linked to fertility problems
Dozens of common household cleaning products contain hidden toxic chemicals linked to fertility disorders in lab animals, according to data gathered by a women's research group.
A type of glycol ether is frequently found in popular cleaning products such as Windex Aerosol, Formula 409, Lemon Fresh Pine-Sol and Simple Green All Purpose Cleaner, says the report released today by Women's Voices for the Earth, a Montana-based nonprofit working to eliminate or reduce toxic chemicals in the home.
The chemical, called ethylene glycol butyl ether or EGBE, is on California's list of toxic air contaminants. Some animal studies indicate that it produces reproductive problems, such as testicular damage, reduced fertility, death of embryos and birth defects. People exposed to high levels of EGBE for several hours have reported nose and eye irritation, headaches, vomiting and a metallic taste in their mouths, studies show.
It's difficult for consumers to know whether their favorite cleaner contains the chemical because manufacturers aren't required to list it on the label. Neither the state nor the federal government regulates indoor air pollution, for instance how the cleaners might degrade air inside a home.
"These are products that women are using in their households on a daily basis, and they use them around their children," said Alexandra Gorman, the group's director of science and research and an author of the report.
The group wants to help people become aware of chemicals they might want to avoid.
Scientists say most people spend about 90 percent of their time indoors. Babies, elderly people and sick people spend almost all of their time inside.
The women's research group pored through federally mandated Material Safety Data Sheets pertaining to household cleaning products. The data sheets, which are prepared by the manufacturers and are widely available online, contain information on chemicals used in products.
The group found that EGBE, also known as 2-butoxyethanol, was a common ingredient. It's a colorless, biodegradable chemical with a fruity odor that acts as a degreaser.
The researchers found about 50 products containing varied amounts of the chemical. Some manufacturers, like Sunshine Makers Inc., which makes the Simple Green brand, didn't report how much of the chemical is used in its products.
Sunshine Makers, based in Huntington Harbour (Orange County), advertises its Simply Green brand as nontoxic and environmentally friendly. In its response to the research group's study, the company said it didn't detail all the chemicals in its products to "protect its formula from piracy."
"At the same time, we back up all of our safety, health and environmental claims with independent laboratory test data, which is available to the public for the asking," the statement said.
Brian Sansoni, a spokesman for the Soap and Detergent Association, an industry trade group, responded to criticisms of the use of EGBE in household cleaners.
"There is no need to play 'Fear Factor' here. This ingredient usage in cleaning products is not known to be of concern for consumers who use these products as directed," Sansoni said.
Members of his group include Clorox Co. and S.C. Johnson, which manufacture Formula 409, Pine-Sol and Windex Aerosol -- the only Windex formulation to contain EGBE, according to the data.
The federal government removed EGBE from its list of hazardous air pollutants a few years ago, Sansoni noted.
Andrew Jacques, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, which represents the manufacturers of the chemical, said his group believes the several recent EPA reviews of EGBE "indicate its low toxicity to humans and the environment."
The EPA maintains a safety guideline for chronic inhalation exposure. The guideline is just that, not a regulatory limit but a guide for health officials.
Jacques also said EGBE is a key ingredient in many cleaners and helps cut the amount of volatile organic compounds in a cleaning product. Such organic compounds can cause other types of air pollution, including smog.
Some academicians and government scientists believe that there should be a reduction in toxic chemicals used in the home.
William Nazaroff, a professor of environmental engineering and chairman of the Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley, said the EPA erred when it removed the chemical from the hazardous air pollutants list.
Nazaroff conducted a study for the California Air Resources Board in 2006 on the indoor air chemistry of cleaning agents and toxic air contaminants.
He found that people using some common products containing EGBE could be exposed to levels 12 times greater than California's one-hour exposure guideline.
"None of these are (legally enforceable) standards for ordinary indoor environments. We have a blind spot in our regulatory structure for toxic air pollutants," Nazaroff said.
"It defies logic to think that it's unsafe to be exposed outdoors but it would be safe to be exposed at that level indoors," he said.
Generally, some of the people who have the most exposure to the chemicals are janitors and maids.
Some of those workers are represented by the Service Employees International Union. Ahmad Abozayd, vice president of SEIU's Local 87 in San Francisco, said there have been oral agreements with companies to use nontoxic products.
In the Bay Area, about 30 million square feet of office space is cleaned with products deemed "environmentally preferable," said Angela Gustafson, senior vice president for OneSource Building Services Inc., a national cleaning company.
The bulk of the chemicals have been certified by an independent group called Green Seal, she said.
"It's absolutely a trend. It's not just for the cleaners of the buildings but for the people who work in the buildings."
In the old days, "people thought it was a good thing to see blue water in the toilet and smell the bleach smell. But if there's so much chemical and caustic in the bathroom, that's harmful."
State officials are also looking at the chemicals.
The state Department of Toxic Substances Control has launched a Green Chemistry Initiative to get away from old-style toxic products. The initiative's purpose is to protect public health and the environment through the design of less-toxic products.
Source: http://www.sfgate.com
According to the EPA, up to 85% of our exposure to pesticides comes from indoor sources
When you think about air pollution, what comes to mind? Smog? Brown Cloud? Cars? How about “home”? Recent studies by the EPA show that the air inside homes and buildings is on average two to five times more polluted than the air in even the most industrial cities (1). With North Americans spending an average of 90% of their time inside, indoor air pollution can pose a serious health risk.
So what’s causing this toxic indoor environment? The culprits run the gamut from mold to invisible gases to household cleaning products. Let’s take a look at some common indoor air pollutants and how to eliminate them from your home.
Biological Pollutants
Not only do household allergens like mold, mildew, animal dander, and dust mites cause common irritations like sneezing and headaches, these biological contaminants have also been estimated to lead to 200,000 emergency room visits per year by asthma patients (2).
Biological pollutants can be reduced through regular household cleaning, removing mold and mildew from damp areas, washing bedding and pillows, and changing humidifier water regularly.
Radon
This colorless, odorless gas is actually the second leading cause of lung cancer, implicated in anywhere from 7,000-30,000 deaths every year (3). Radon gas naturally rises from the ground and dissipates into the air. The problem arises when structures such as homes are built over “hot spots,” thereby trapping the gas inside. When breathed in, radon reacts with lung tissue, causing damage that over time can lead to lung cancer.
The only way to know if your home has high levels of radon is to test for it.
Radon test kits
are now available for homeowners to check radon levels in the home.
Carbon Monoxide
There’s yet another colorless and odorless gas besides radon that may be lurking in your home, but this one could be far more dangerous. Carbon monoxide gas is a deadly indoor air pollutant and can be generated from the incomplete combustion of fuel in household devices like gas stoves, furnaces, water heaters, fireplaces, and cars. Carbon monoxide inhibits the transport of oxygen through the body. At low levels of exposure, it may cause dizziness, vomiting, muscle aches, and general weakness. Prolonged exposure to carbon monoxide can lead to death.
The number-one way to protect yourself and your family from carbon monoxide poisoning is to purchase a carbon monoxide detector. These units function like smoke detectors and go off when carbon monoxide levels get too high. In addition, it’s wise to have a professional check all fuel burning devices in your home (the flames should be blue), never bring burning charcoal indoors, never leave cars running in an enclosed or attached garage, and always open the flue before starting a fire.
Formaldehyde
Carpets, upholstery, drapery fabric, and plywood paneling may be releasing chemicals such as formaldehyde into your air. Formaldehyde is classified by the EPA as a possible carcinogen. Exposure to the chemical may cause headaches, eye, nose, and throat irritation, dizziness and coughing. To make matters worse, the adhesives in new carpeting may release a potentially dangerous gas, which is responsible for that “new carpet smell.” New clothing is also typically preserved with formaldehyde.
To reduce risk, open windows and ventilate the area when new carpeting and furnishings are installed, and ask retailers for information on carpet and upholstery emissions. Also, wash new clothing before wearing it.
Household Products and Pesticides
Finally, let’s look at what is probably the most common source of indoor air pollution – household products. The cleaners, disinfectants, paints, varnishes, and glues designed to make life easier also release many harmful chemicals into the air of our homes. Compounds from these products can pollute both while they are in use and while they are in storage.
Surprisingly, even personal care products can contribute to indoor pollution. Products like hairspray, hair dye, air fresheners, and nail polish removers contain chemicals that evaporate easily into the air and can lead to dizziness, headaches, and irritation to the eyes, nose, and throat. Take note that aerosol sprays release more chemicals into the air because they disperse the product in tiny, airborne droplets.
What may come as a surprise to you is that many pesticides are also found inside homes. Pesticides are used to kill or repel, and according to the American Lung Association even a disinfectant is a pesticide. Carpets act as reservoirs for the pesticides we track in from outdoors, retaining these chemicals for years even though they would break down within days outside. In fact, 85% of our exposure to pesticides comes from indoor sources (4).
The chemicals in household products and pesticides found indoors can cause dizziness, headaches, irritation to eyes, nose, and throat, nausea and even cancer. An estimated 3,000 cases of cancer each year in the U.S. are thought to be caused by long-term use of household products and pesticides (5). This health risk can be reduced by using natural, non-toxic methods of cleaning and pest control, and reading the label warnings before using toxic products. (An online source for nontoxic home cleaning products recommended by Eartheasy is the Simple.Pure.Natural. line developed by Seaside Naturals.)
Simple daily adjustments can greatly reduce your risk of living in a polluted home. Remember to read labels, keep toxic product lids tight, ventilate your home, get detectors, and avoid the use of toxic products whenever possible. Also, spread the word about indoor air pollution, because once folks have a better understanding of what may be making the air in their homes unhealthy, they will be better armed to make choices to protect their health and the health of the Earth. For more useful information on indoor air quality, check out www.epa.gov/iaq/ and www.lungusa.org/air/indoor_factsheet99.html.
Signs of Possible Indoor Air Pollution:
• Stale or stuffy air; unusual odors
• A tightly constructed home (especially new homes)
• Noticeable health reactions from remodeling, redecorating, installing new carpet, or moving to a new home
• Feeling noticeably better outdoors—Healthy Indoor Air for America’s Homes, EPA
Testing for air quality, and further information:
IAQ INFO is an easily accessible, central source of information on indoor air quality, created and supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As concern about air pollution indoors has grown, so has the amount of information on this subject but getting current, useful information can be a challenging task. The purpose of IAQ INFO is to help you locate information to answer your questions about indoor air pollution.
Consumers may call the toll-free number 1-800-438-4318 to speak to an information specialist, Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern time.
Source: http://www.eartheasy.com/article_air_quality_home.htm
Household Cleaning Supplies - The Problem Source: National Geographic's Green Guide
The Problems
Personal Health
When consumers buy commercial cleaning products, we expect them to do one thing: clean! We use a wide array of scents, soaps, detergents, bleaching agents, softeners, scourers, polishes, and specialized cleaners for bathrooms, glass, drains, and ovens to keep our homes sparkling and sweet-smelling. But while the chemicals in cleaners foam, bleach, and disinfect to make our dishes, bathtubs and countertops gleaming and germ-free, many also contribute to indoor air pollution, are poisonous if ingested, and can be harmful if inhaled or touched. In fact, some cleaners are among the most toxic products found in the home. In 2000, cleaning products were responsible for nearly 10% of all toxic exposures reported to U.S. Poison Control Centers, accounting for 206,636 calls. Of these, 120,434 exposures involved children under six, who can swallow or spill cleaners stored or left open inside the home.
Cleaning ingredients vary in the type of health hazard they pose. Some cause acute, or immediate, hazards such as skin or respiratory irritation, watery eyes, or chemical burns, while others are associated with chronic, or long-term, effects such as cancer.
The most acutely dangerous cleaning products are corrosive drain cleaners, oven cleaners, and acidic toilet bowl cleaners, according to Philip Dickey of the Washington Toxics Coalition. Corrosive chemicals can cause severe burns on eyes, skin and, if ingested, on the throat and esophagus. Ingredients with high acute toxicity include chlorine bleach and ammonia, which produce fumes that are highly irritating to eyes, nose, throat and lungs, and should not be used by people with asthma or lung or heart problems. These two chemicals pose an added threat in that they can react with each other or other chemicals to form lung-damaging gases. Combining products that contain chlorine and ammonia or ammonia and lye (in some oven cleaners) produces chloramine gases, while chlorine combined with acids (commonly used in toilet bowl cleaners) forms toxic chlorine gas.
Fragrances added to many cleaners, most notably laundry detergents and fabric softeners, may cause acute effects such as respiratory irritation, headache, sneezing, and watery eyes in sensitive individuals or allergy and asthma sufferers. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has found that one-third of the substances used in the fragrance industry are toxic. But because the chemical formulas of fragrances are considered trade secrets, companies aren't required to list their ingredients but merely label them as containing "fragrance."
Other ingredients in cleaners may have low acute toxicity but contribute to long-term health effects, such as cancer or hormone disruption. Some all-purpose cleaners contain the sudsing agents diethanolamine (DEA) and triethanolamine (TEA). When these substances come into contact with nitrites, often present as undisclosed preservatives or contaminants, they react to form nitrosamines - carcinogens that readily penetrate the skin. 1,4-dioxane, another suspected carcinogen, may be present in cleaners made with ethoxylated alcohols. Butyl cellosolve (also known as ethylene glycol monobutyl ether), which may be neurotoxic (or cause damage to the brain and nervous system), is also present in some cleaners.
Chemicals that are so-called "hormone disruptors" can interfere with the body's natural chemical messages, either by blocking or mimicking the actions of hormones. Possible health effects include decreased sperm counts, increased rates of male birth defects such as cryptorchidism (undescended testicles) and hypospadias (where the urethra is on the underside of the penis), and increased rates of some kinds of cancers. The alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs) used in some detergents and cleaners have been shown to mimic the hormone estrogen; one APE, p-nonylphenol, has caused estrogen-sensitive breast cancer cells to multiply in a test tube study.
Environmental
After bubbly cleaning liquids disappear down our drains, they are treated along with sewage and other waste water at municipal treatment plants, then discharged into nearby waterways. Most ingredients in chemical cleaners break down into harmless substances during treatment or soon afterward. Others, however, do not, threatening water quality or fish and other wildlife. In a May 2002 study of contaminants in stream water samples across the country, the U.S. Geological Survey found persistent detergent metabolites in 69% of streams tested. Sixty-six percent contained disinfectants.
The detergent metabolites the USGS detected were members of a class of chemicals called alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs). APEs, which include nonylphenol ethoxylates and octylphenol ethoxylates, are surfactants, or "surface active agents" that are key to detergents' effectiveness. They are added to some laundry detergents, disinfectants, laundry stain removers, and citrus cleaner/degreasers. When discharged in municipal waste water, nonylphenol ethoxylates and octylphenol ethoxylates break down into nonylphenol and octylphenol, which are more toxic and do not readily biodegrade in soil and water. APEs have been shown to mimic the hormone estrogen, and their presence in water may be harming the reproduction and survival of salmon and other fish. For example, in Britain, researcher John Sumpter discovered that male fish exposed to APEs in rivers were producing female egg-yolk proteins. APE pollution may be threatening fish in the U.S. as well, for octylphenol and nonylphenol were the detergent metabolites that the USGS detected in 69% of streams tested here. Such ubiquity may not bode well for humans, either: the APE p-nonylphenol has also caused estrogen-sensitive breast cancer cells to proliferate in test tubes.
Another famous water pollutant is phosphates, water-softening mineral additives that were once widely used in laundry detergents and other cleaners. When phosphates enter waterways, they act as a fertilizer, spawning overgrowth of algae. This overabundance of aquatic plant life eventually depletes the water's oxygen supply, killing off fish and other organisms. Although many states have banned phosphates from laundry detergents and some other cleaners, they are still used in automatic dishwasher detergents.
Another environmental concern with cleaning products is that many use chemicals that are petroleum-based, contributing to the depletion of this non-renewable resource and increasing our nation's dependence on imported oil.
The plastic bottles used to package cleaning products pose another environmental problem by contributing to the mounds of solid waste that must be landfilled, incinerated or, in not enough cases, recycled. Most cleaners are bottled in high-density polyethylene (HDPE, denoted by the #2 inside the recycling triangle) or polyethylene terephthalate (PETE, #1) which are accepted for recycling in a growing number of communities. However, some are bottled in polyvinyl chloride (PVC, #3). PVC, otherwise known as vinyl, is made from cancer-causing chemicals such as vinyl chloride, and it forms as a byproduct a potent carcinogen, dioxin, during production and incineration. As a final insult, most sanitation departments do not accept PVC for recycling; less than 1% of all PVC is recycled each year.
The Solutions
What to look for
A few safe, simple ingredients like soap, water, baking soda, vinegar, lemon juice and borax, aided by a little elbow grease and a coarse sponge for scrubbing, can take care of most household cleaning needs. And they can save you lots of money wasted on unnecessary, specialized cleaners! For that reason, we've provided recipes for do-it-yourself cleaners under most product categories (See Product Comparisons).
However, when you need the convenience or the added power of pre-made, commercial cleaners, or for the basics like laundry and dishwashing detergents, here are some shopping guidelines to help you choose products with the lowest impact on your health and the environment:
1. Although most cleaners don't list ingredients, you can learn something about a product's hazards by reading its label. Most labels bear a signal word, such as Danger, Warning or Caution, that provides some indication of a product's toxicity. Products labeled Danger or Poison are typically most hazardous; those bearing a Warning label are moderately hazardous, and formulas with a Caution label are considered slightly toxic. If you find them, choose products that are nontoxic enough that they require none of the signal words above on their label. Beside the signal word is usually a phrase that describes the nature of the hazard, such as "may cause skin irritation," "flammable," "vapors harmful," or "may cause burns on contact." Look for instructions on how to use the product, which may help you avoid injury. Some labels do list active ingredients, which may assist you in detecting caustic or irritating ingredients you may wish to avoid, such as ammonia or sodium hypochlorite. A few manufacturers voluntarily list all ingredients.
2. When gauging ecological claims, look for specifics. For example, "biodegradable in 3 to 5 days" holds a lot more meaning than "biodegradable," as most substances will eventually break down if given enough time and the right ecological conditions. And claims like "no solvents," "no phosphates," or "plant-based" are more meaningful than vague terms like "ecologically-friendly" or "natural."'
3. When ingredients are listed, choose products made with plant-based, instead of petroleum-based, ingredients.
4. To reduce packaging waste: Choose cleaners in the largest container sizes available; especially seek out bulk sizes. Select products in bottles made with at least some recycled plastic. By doing so, you support companies that are providing a vital end-market for recycled plastic (without this market, recycling would not be possible). And choose concentrated formulas, which contain only 20% or less water. Because dilution with water is done at home, not at the factory, concentrated cleaners overall require less packaging and fuels for shipping.
What to look out for
Avoid cleaners marked "Danger" or "Poison" on the label, and look out for other tell-tale hazard warnings, such as "corrosive" or "may cause burns."
Avoid products that list active ingredients of chlorine or ammonia, which can cause respiratory and skin irritation and will create toxic fumes if accidentally mixed together.
Protect water quality and aquatic life by refusing to purchase detergents containing phosphates, which may cause algal blooms, or alkylphenol ethoxylates, including nonylphenol and octylphenol. Unfortunately, these ingredients are rarely, if ever, disclosed on labels; however, the brands recommended in this report are, to the best of our knowledge, phosphate- and APE-free.
Beware of unregulated "greenwash" claims on labels! Terms such as "natural" and "eco-friendly" shouldn't be equated with safety unless they're backed up with specific ingredient information, such as "solvent-free," "no petroleum-based ingredients," "no phosphates," etc. "Non-toxic" has no official definition, so unless a third party has verified this claim, it is not considered meaningful. And don't believe "organic" ingredients in cleaning and other chemical products are any safer than other substances. Although "organic" in the grocery store refers to foods grown without synthetic pesticides, in chemistry it refers to chemicals that are carbon-based, including some VOCs (volatile organic compounds) that release harmful fumes and may cause brain damage or cancer.Additionally, watch out for products labeled organic. Household cleaning products aren’t regulated by the Organic Foods Production Act, but some of their ingredients, such as plant oils, can be labeled “certified organic.” For more info, see ecolabels.org.
Be aware that some labels that may make a product appear eco-friendly are actually meaningless. For example, many aerosol spray cans are labeled "no CFCs" (or chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone layer), leading consumers to believe they are buying a more eco-friendly product by purchasing that brand. In reality, CFCs have been banned from aerosols since 1978, so none are permitted to contain CFCs. And think of all of the resources that would be saved if companies that advertise their packaging as "100% recyclable" actually switched to materials that are "100% recycled!"
"It's a dirty business, but companies need to start using safer cleaning products", Activists say
by Ric Kahn, Globe Staff | September 30, 2007
Her daughter's eyes were pink and puffy. The child's nose was scratchy and runny. Nancy Figueroa of Jamaica Plain did everything she could to make her daughter well: She bought one medicine after another; did more wash than a 24-hour laundromat; gave to charity her daughter's stuffed animals that might be carrying dust, including the little monkey that young Katherine clung to for comfort.
Still the allergies raged.
Katherine missed so many days early on in elementary school she had to repeat a grade and say goodbye to childhood friends, her mother says.
But once she left that school, Figueroa says, the problem disappeared. It wasn't until about a year ago, after Figueroa went to work as a health advocate for the Committee for Boston Public Housing, that she surmised the allergy trigger might have been right under her daughter's dripping nose.
In an effort to keep her former schoolhouse clean, Figueroa believes, custodians may have inadvertently been discharging contaminants into the air when they scrubbed.
"I didn't link it," says Figueroa, 42. "You always think that school is a safe place."
Now, the Boston public schools are transforming themselves into greener houses of learning. Earlier this month, the superintendent unfurled an ecological manifesto, reiterating the switchover in 135 buildings, completed last year, to what officials believe are safer alternatives for day-in day-out cleaning.
"Boston public schools will provide and use more environmentally friendly effective cleaning products, which will greatly help those with asthma and allergies," Superintendent Carol Johnson declared. When it comes to cleaning green, schools aren't the city's only eco-friendly outposts. It's as if environmental activists Laurie David and Sheryl Crow came to Boston and started painting parts of the town green: from community rooms in Roxbury to kitchen counters in JP.
"People spend about 90 percent of their time indoors," says Tolle Graham, a health and safety organizer for the Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health, which has been at the center of many local green-clean initiatives.
Though not as sexy as fighting acid rain, global warming, or the desecration of rain forests, the environmental movement is turning its attention to indoor pollution, warning of dangers that may lurk in cleaning products used on living room furniture, in toilet bowls, and on desktops.
"This is largely invisible to our eyes," says Janet Domenitz, executive director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group. "They aren't obvious, like a toxic spill where the river has turned a different color and the banks are foaming with pollution."
Yet advocates cite studies that allege possible links, from exposure on the job or at home, between some cleaning-product ingredients and fertility problems, birth defects, asthma, allergies, and other ailments.
Figueroa, who has asthma herself, has spread her green knowledge to her apartment at the Boston Housing Authority's South Street development, and to others. She no longer reaches for her inhaler when cleaning, she says, after subbing green materials for stronger chemicals that made her nauseated as she struggled for air. Throughout BHA developments, she's part of a healthy-homes team that teaches residents to do things like mix one cup of white vinegar with two gallons of water to clean floors and keep at bay the roaches and rodents that also provoke asthma, while authority workers use green inhibitors to ward off asthma-grating mold.
Mainstream manufacturers say their cleaning products on the industrial and household side are safe, and that they worry that less effective alternatives could allow formidable bacteria such as E. coli to gain the upper hand. Further, they take umbrage at being blamed for those studies' findings, questioning whether the results of the testing are due to exposure to cleaning products or to the dangerous gunk the cleaners are trying to eliminate. "There are scare tactics being used to . . . demonize traditional cleaning products, but there's nothing to demonize," says Bill Lafield, vice president of communications for the Consumer Specialty Products Association, which represents major cleaning-product companies that the group says invests millions on safety measures. "In the cleaning-product industry, people want to do the right thing environmentally."
Still, citing past issues, from lead in gasoline to global warming, enviro-advocates predict that on green cleaning, too, they will soon go from being portrayed as shrill naysayers to shrewd prognosticators. "It's as old as the hills," says Domenitz. "The activists raise a red flag early on . . . and get marginalized." "I'm sick of waiting," Domenitz continues, noting a high price for standing still, not only for coughers but coffers as well - millions, she says, in lost productivity, missed school days, and medical treatment.
Though it may seem like it, the thrust toward green clean hasn't come out of the blue. It represents an offshoot of the green building trend and an emergent alliance between labor leaders and environmentalists fighting so workers won't suck in dangerous fumes. It's an effort to reduce childhood asthma, which the Boston Urban Asthma Coalition calls the number one chronic condition treated in the city's public schools.
It's also a nexus between personal health and planetary well-being, as those cleaning products suspected of causing bodily harm might also endanger bodies of water after being flushed down the drain - another charge the industry disputes.
Enviro-advocates say that with gaps in government oversight and a lack of full-disclosure labeling requirements for all household cleaners, they won't disappear like stains zapped from a dining room table. In fact, they say they want more: passage of proposed legislation on Beacon Hill requiring that green products be used statewide to clean specific sites frequented by the public, from schools to hospitals.
Some who've used the alternative products - from professionals ordering them in industrial size to homemakers buying eco-friendly-marked items at the supermarket - say the green goods are just as effective as the mainstream brands in cost and cleaning. Cleaning-product manufacturers oppose such a law, as does the Massachusetts Hospital Association, which is skeptical that green cleaners are up to the task of knocking out insidious germs. As Karen Nelson, the association's senior vice president of clinical affairs, says, "You don't want your operating room to be 99 percent clean."
Janice Homer is a 47-year-old registered nurse in a Boston hospital who says she developed asthma by inhaling harsh cleaning chemicals at a previous hospital at which she she worked. Homer is part of an illness-fighting corps that is getting sick itself at high rates. Among the occupations tracked for work-related asthma by the state Department of Public Health from 1993 to 2006, nurses ranked first, accounting for 13.3 percent of confirmed cases. After working for more than 15 years at that hospital south of Boston, Homer says, she started feeling ill there in 2000. Her chest tightened and lungs inflamed and sinuses swelled, she says, whenever she passed a sink being cleaned or a floor being buffed. Once, she says, she had to administer oxygen to herself when she couldn't breathe and her skin turned blue. After she shifted to a Boston hospital, she says, she no longer was exposed to conventional buffing and spraying. Her asthma, she says, went away.
"There are alternatives," says Homer, who is active on the Massachusetts Nurses Association health and safety committee and supports the pending green clean legislation. "My example could happen to anybody."
If Homer's confrontation with cleaning chemicals was dire, Victor Euceda's was more subtle. When the 36-year-old custodian spritzed the windows at the Roxbury housing development he cares for, he sometimes felt a tickle in his throat, or a cough slowly rise from his chest. But the brunt of the effect was in his head. He'd think, "Right now, I don't feel anything" bothering him physically. Later on, though, he fretted that he might suffer breathing problems. What would happen to his wife and kids if he was out of work? "We couldn't get enough money to live," Euceda said to himself.
His concerns were not farfetched. A study published in the "Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine" that looked at worker data from Massachusetts and three other states found that exposure to cleaning products was associated with 12 percent of total asthma cases across all jobs surveyed.
When the nonprofit community development corporation Urban Edge last year converted to green cleaning at the complex Euceda maintains, and at more than a dozen of its other housing sites in the city, Euceda felt a sense of relief wash over him. " I'm just cleaning," the Honduran native says now. "I forget about myself."
Some of that green side effect fell on Tasha Williams, too. She lives at the new Amory Residences that Euceda keeps up. Before the environmental alteration there, Williams says she could tell when Euceda had just done her hallway. Her teenage son, Christopher, who has asthma, would bound up the stairs like he'd just run for miles: wheezing, coughing, heaving. Her daughter Lorraine, now 8, would start her nonstop allergy sneezing.Her own asthma would kick in, her lungs clamping closed. She was dubious that the green products would really clean. But that skepticism, she says, soon dissolved. Now, she says, her family's breathing easier all around. "It's better for my kids," says Williams, 38, who's gone uber-eco inside her home, as well. In the last year or so, she figures she's saved $100 from the change to green cleaning, from fewer doctor visits to lower pharmacy co-payments. For her family, Williams says, that kind of green has had other restorative benefits, like extra trips to the movies and more Friday night pizzas.
University of Minnesota Cleans House
Not long ago, the storage of hazardous chemicals turned heads at the University of Minnesota. In fall 1998, the University’s Facilities Management Division realized that empty and partly filled cleaning product containers were piling up in over 900 janitors’ closets. A University's Safety Technician witnessed disturbing signs. With custodians cleaning 11 million square feet every day, the container pile-up represented not just a logistical disposal problem but an ongoing employee health threat and a long-term danger to the environment.
In a groundbreaking review for a major university, the University's Environmental Health Specialist , and his colleagues organized the Material Review Board to do a top-to-bottom evaluation of the division’s cleaning products. By winter, the board heard confounding and alarming findings. It learned that Facilities Management purchases nearly 500 different products, many of which were redundant. Worse, the shopping list included 18 varieties of floor strippers that contain some of the most toxic chemicals found in janitorial products. Many ingredients in these petrochemical-based products are listed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) toxic chemical hit list, the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The handling, use and disposal of these petrochemicals requires strict adherence to EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations.
The board decided to clean house. It set two goals: consolidate the number of janitorial products purchased and find safer products. Last spring Facilities Management cut from 500 to 135 the number of approved chemicals it purchases. Then, in winter 1999, the board took another landmark step. The board began exploring the advantages of replacing its petroleum-derived products with less toxic cleaners derived from plant matter. The result is a first for a major university—Facilities Management will phase out its present reliance on the old highly toxic products by 2005, the year its janitorial staff will switch entirely to biobased cleaners.
Made from renewable resources, biobased cleaners avoid petrochemicals altogether. They contain chemical extracts and oils derived from citrus fruits, nuts, seeds and vegetable crops, and range from soy methyl esters to lactic acid esters and dimethylsulfoxide. Case studies show that biobased cleaners easily meet or exceed the performance of petrochemical ones.
Several reasons prompted the university’s decision to kick the petrochemical habit. It's Project Coordinator Zone Manager foresaw the inevitable enactment of stricter regulations requiring the use of less toxic chemicals. Many petroleum-based solvents and cleaners contain chemicals that are on the EPA’s TRI list, and that list is expected to grow. So rather than replace existing toxic petrochemicals with other petrochemicals that have the potential to end up being regulated, the Project's Coordinator's Team wanted a long-term solution. Because of reduced health and environmental dangers, chemicals derived from plant matter are not listed, nor are likely ever to be listed, on the EPA’s TRI list. The Project's Coordinator and his colleagues agree that making the shift to less toxic products protects the health and safety of the university’s employees, students and surrounding environment.
The change also makes economic sense. Petrochemical-based ingredients carry hidden costs, starting with training. Large institutions typically spend more when they have to train their employees in the proper handling and use of products that fall under EPA and OSHA regulations. At the University of Minnesota, this cost was felt acutely. Given the scope of its custodial needs, Facilities Management has organized the school—one of the nation’s largest land grant universities, straddling both banks of the Mississippi River—into six geographical zones. The profusion of some 500 products was complicated enough, but further complicating matters was that different products were in use from zone to zone. Every time employees transferred to a new assignment, they had to be retrained. The Project's Coordinator calculated that by standardizing the use of janitorial products across all zones, the university will save around $20,000 per year in their training program alone.
And the costs continue even when the petrochemical products are used up. Federal and Minnesota state regulations strictly govern the disposal of hazardous petrochemical products, something that does not come cheaply for a large institution. Accounting for the presence of TRI-listed cleaning products, the Project's Coordinator estimates that the university pays an average disposal cost of $250 for each container with unknown content—a sum much in excess of what many of the products cost before being opened. Containers range from one quart to a 55-gallon drum and volume of disposed content varies, making it difficult to calculate the disposal cost per gallon. By switching to bulk mixing systems and reducing the number of individual container purchases, the university stands to benefit from substantial cost savings.
Embarking on a complete overhaul of outmoded, unsafe product procurement isn’t easy, but the University's Facilities Management Division are optimistic about the benefits. Custodians have already voiced their approval of using safer biobased products.