Does Dioxane Blow the Lid off Ecover's Green Cover?
by Karin Kloosterman, Jerusalem, Israel on 04. 7.08
Ecover is lauded by the United Nations for protecting the earth, and the company's products scour many a lean and green TreeHugging homes – even ours.
Looking beyond the products' labeling and phosphate-freeness, the Organic Consumer's Association decided to do its own tests.
Among some of our favorite eco-brands emerged Ecover. The much-loved household product, it was found, tested positive for an alleged cancer-causing agent, known as 1,4-Dioxane.
Now before you jump into your nuclear-waste protection suits and dump all your Ecover products into a toxic waste site, what does this all mean?
Is dioxane something we should worry about?
According to Organic Consumers (see PDF), it is. They attempt to debunk the myth that minute amounts of dioxane are not harmful.
If you ask the late Dr. Bronner, of Dr. Bronner soaps, he would probably say that dioxanes are dangerous. But then again, Dr. Bronner's soap tested for no detectable traces of dioxane, according to the Organic Consumer's Association.
Ecover on the other hand, was found to have almost twice the amount of dioxane that regular off-the-shelf dish washing detergent (2.4 parts per million, versus 1.6). This is a bit worrying due to the trace amounts of soap that one ingests with every meal, and that the chemical has been linked to immune system disruption.
On the site Buygreenstandards, dioxane is also known as diethylene dioxide, diethylene ether, diethylene oxide, and it is not to be confused with dioxin, they write.
Dioxane is a solvent classified by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen, and some research suggests that it may suppress the immune system. Dioxane is listed in the 1990 Clean Air Act as a hazardous air pollutant and is on the EPA’s Community Right-to-Know list. Found in: Window cleaners.
One blogger, Allie's Green Answers, who this TreeHugger blogged about here, was most concerned with the Ecover dioxane news, and the fact that she's been promoting Ecover to her readers.
Ecover's PR people responded with this:
Substantial quantities of dioxine [sic] are found in the production of synthetic fibers, such as polyester, a fabric that is worn daily by roughly 85 % of the planet’s population.Mainly produced by two US companies, the ingredient is also used in high dosages as a solvent in mass production, including the paper and cotton industry as well as the polymer industry for the production of PET bottles.
It is therefore astonishing that the above-mentioned investigation turned a blind eye on such superabundant and well-spread sources and preferred to single out easy-to-research, mere minute traces of dioxine in detergents.
Several years ago, the European detergent industry put a limit on dioxane traces at 100 parts per million of surfactant. Ecover’s own criterion is set at half, namely 50 parts per million.
This leads to values as low as the 2,4 parts detected in the Ecover product. The threshold for reporting the presence of dioxane in tap water in The Netherlands, a country with a stringent environmental legislation, is 3 parts per million parts of water. This means that, in the unlikely event, you drank an entire bottle of pure Ecover Dishwashing liquid you still wouldn’t reach that threshold!”
We tend to be of the notion what doesn't kill us makes us stronger, and that a little bit of dioxane, probably wouldn't do any harm. It's most likely that the testers are being overly-cautious, but then again, if you are paying higher "green" prices, one would expect a deluxe product.
Any dioxane/dioxin experts out there who can:
a) Tell us the difference between dioxin and dioxane?
b) Calm any unnecessary fears?
TreeHugger related ::Help There's An Industrial Solvent In My Shampoo ::Common Eco-Myth: Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) Causes Cancer ::Is New Organic Beauty Label Green or Greenwash? ::All Our Vital Bodily Fluids is Contaminated
::Green Prophet via :: Allie's Green Answers via :: Israel Wholistic Forum
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- How to Go Green: Beers
- American Media & the Green Movement: Questions for Readers to Ponder
- Eco Dishwashing Liquid Works As Well as Cascade
- Revolution Organics Makes Multi-Tasking Cosmetics
You have to wonder though why they put it in to begin with, seeing as there are dish cleaning options that contain no dioxanes, regardless of it's use as a solvent.
Is 1,4-Dioxane naturally occurring? If so, what are the trace amounts we ingest on a daily bases independent of cleaning solutions?
Should the "green" resource that many read be giving their opinion in such a loose manner without telling exactly why they feel the way they do? "We tend to be of the notion what doesn't kill us makes us stronger, and that a little bit of dioxane, probably wouldn't do any harm."
Also, I feel that my opinion of Ecover and their apparent "green-ness" is already tainted due simply to their vast number of products that may possibly be used for the same tasks. And the fact that they offer products that people don't really need to use, such as fabric softener. Does anyone else feel similar to me in this respect?
Dioxine and Dioxane are very similar in construct. As a molecule they are both circular in set up. But, as a molecule, Dioxane is also globular (in other words it looks kinda like a out of shape ball).
Of the two, dioxines are not easily biodegradable and are linked to increasing the chances of cancer. The EPA designates them as a serious threat to public health.
Dioxane, aides in biodegration. It is a known carcinogen to animals, BUT does require a lot to be dangerous. It is also an eye and skin irritant. However in rough amounts, if your skin becomes irritated to it, you still need more of it (3 molar) to get to the point where it is a worry about the carcinogenic nature.
If it was me, and I had the choice between the same amount of dioxine versus dioxane, I'd go for dioxane. Easier to break down. And more noticable if it is dangerous. I like to know when I'm getting cancer, thank you.
I don't think this is anything to freak out about. 1,4-dioxane is a byproduct of ethoxylation, a process used to soften harsh detergents. Ethoxylation is used to modify plant oils to make them function as surfactants. It's possible to create surfactants without ethoxylation, but there are downsides (environmental and cost) to these production methods as well.
There are thousands of substances, both natural and synthetic, that will cause cancer if ingested in large enough quantities over a long enough period of time. Just because there are trace elements of one of them in a product doesn't mean that the product isn't green. Companies like Ecover and Seventh Generation have made a huge commitment to producing safe and environmentally friendly products -- and they did so long before green products had entered the mainstream. Let's not abandon them now just because one chemical found in their products (in minuscule amounts) isn't completely benign.
You can read Seventh Generation's response to the dioxane issue here.
If I pay almost double for a product that promises to be better for me and the planet it better be free of any ingredient that is a" known carcinogen".
Obviously it is not impossible to produce a cleaner without them since Dr Bronner's does not have them. I think the part that is important to remember here is that if it is more expensive to get them out we can see which companies have their customers' health hia.orgthat is where these companies priorities are; maximum profits.
Clearly more research needs to be done. If you err on the side of the precautionary principle, you probably will avoid buying any Ecover soap and opt for Dr. Bronner's which looks like on the whole gets pretty good reviews.
But on the other hand, you could also say "the dose makes the poison." It'd be really interesting to see some studies on the effects of dioxane at trace levels. Perhaps there's a threshold for its carcinogenic effects to occur...or maybe (and hopefully not because on the whole, I like Ecover soap) it's like lead in that it can be more harmful at low doses....but I really hope not.
Clearly more research needs to be done. If you err on the side of the precautionary principle, you probably will avoid buying any Ecover soap and opt for Dr. Bronner's which looks like on the whole gets pretty good reviews.
But on the other hand, you could also say "the dose makes the poison." It'd be really interesting to see some studies on the effects of dioxane at trace levels. Perhaps there's a threshold for its carcinogenic effects to occur...or maybe (and hopefully not because on the whole, I like Ecover soap) it's like lead in that it can be more harmful at low doses....but I really hope not.
I am a chemist by training, but not necessarily and expert on this, but here are my thoughts.
There are two issues here.
1. If this is supposed to be an organic product where does the 1, 4 dioxane come from. From the info online (wikipedia, etc.) it appears that the only reason this stuff should be present is from ethoxylation of fatty acids to make surfactants (soaps like sodium laureth sulfate). This is an industrial process, one I don't image would be "organic."
From the ingredient list, they do indicate they use sodium laureth sulfate
Water
Sodium Laureth Sulfate
Lauryl Polyglucose
Sodium Chloride
Citric Acid
Perfume
Limonene
Hydrolyzed Wheat Gluten/Protein
Aloe Barbadensis Extract
Citral
Bronopol
2. The amount that was detected is very low, and is not likely to cause cancer at the level present. In addition, it is probably more like one of its precursors ethylene oxide. If rats are exposed to large amount for their entire lives, they develop liver cancer. But factory workers making ethylene oxide show no increased cancer. So it may be dose dependent and not cumulative.
3. Traditional soaps probably have way more compounds of concern than 1,4 dioxane, pthalates in the fragrances, more 1,4 dioxane from polyglycols, and completely synthetic polymers (not sure what Laurel polyglucose is).
Just my 2 cents. Sodium Laureth Sulfate is very good as a soap, and much better for the environment than phosphates. Thats why its in everything. But you will get trace 1,4 dioxane as a result of mfg.
Also, dioxin has really nothing to do with 1,4 dioxane. They look structurally similar, but they are not funcationally similar. Both are 6 member ring structures that contain oxygen atoms, but dioxine has 2, carbon-carbon double bonds, giving it very different properties than dioxane. I also think that there is probably no way that either compound could be converted into the other without a very creative chemist.
Trace amounts in one bottle - multiply it by the amount of product they produce, wash it all down the drain and concentrate it in our food supply. Trace amounts are not acceptable.
any one else find this funny:
since they're talking about ratios (PPM-- parts per million meaning that for any amount of soap, .0003% is dioxane wikipedia link) the amount you drink doesn't matter... the other stuff you ingest makes up the ratio. Using that logic you could have enough to literally drown in dioxane (assuming it's a liquid) and still not have more than 3 parts per million
Bottom line for me - if I'm paying an exhorbitant amount for a 'green' and 'ecologically sound' product, I don't appreciate added crap in it. I'm paying for the absence of added crap.
I went and bought Trader Joe's store brand of dish soap today and it works great. Coconut-derived surfactants, mandarin orange oil, and water. No crap and 1/3 the price of Ecover.
Also, why on earth do you need to add WHEAT GLUTEN to dish soap?? We have gluten allergies in our home, and would never have thought to look at the dish sopa (not that Ecover disclosed it on the label anyway). Unbelievable.
Interesting to see how there are a lot of people that expect to get their money's worth for a green product.
I am not a chemist, but I understand that making a dish washing liquid that works, is stable, and contains maximally biodegradeable and possibly natural chemicals is not as easy as some of you may think.
Ecover is in a privilieged position, since it currently does not have many competitors. It should be criticised for any environmentally dodgy practices, but to jump on any ill informed bandwagon and cause it bad publicity is really not helping the green cause. Serious competitor companies need to emerge and, when they feel they are losing customers, the other detergent companies will also have to make greener products. That would make a difference (and make your Ecover or whatever cheaper!).
I don't see that happening at the moment. Slagging off the few decent and scientifically informed green companies doesn't help.
If you want to be really ecofriendly, perhaps you could try and develop your own natural and completely harmless for humans detergent yourself.
P.S.: As far as I can see Dr Bronner does not make dish wash liquid.
Interesting to see how there are a lot of people that expect to get their money's worth for a green product.
I am not a chemist, but I understand that making a dish washing liquid that works, is stable, and contains maximally biodegradeable and possibly natural chemicals is not as easy as some of you may think.
Ecover is in a privilieged position, since it currently does not have many competitors. It should be criticised for any environmentally dodgy practices, but to jump on any ill informed bandwagon and cause it bad publicity is really not helping the green cause. Serious competitor companies need to emerge and, when they feel they are losing customers, the other detergent companies will also have to make greener products. That would make a difference (and make your Ecover or whatever cheaper!).
I don't see that happening at the moment. Slagging off the few decent and scientifically informed green companies doesn't help.
If you want to be really ecofriendly, perhaps you could try and develop your own natural and completely harmless for humans detergent yourself.
P.S.: As far as I can see Dr Bronner does not make dish wash liquid.
Folks, quit panicking. This is way overblown. Dioxane is not a big deal, expecially at these exposures, which are thousands of times below the thresholds that were observed to have any effect on animals.
Remember:
1: Everything you have ever touched, eaten, or smelled is a chemical, or a mixture of them
2: The dose makes the poison: 500 grams of salt or two gallons of water will kill you if ingested quickly
3: If your body was this sensitive to low levels of "carcinogens", you would already be dead. You are exposed to trace levels of countless carcinogens every day, both natural and man-made. Get over it.