Ecover Responds to the Organic Consumers Association 1,4 Dioxane Test and TH Post
by Karin Kloosterman, Jerusalem, Israel on 06. 2.08
Sometimes it’s easy to look at study numbers, and without any solid background in the field, infer judgment about what those numbers mean. We do this when we see cancer studies, read about glaciers retreating, or count the alarming number of species that appear to be on the verge of extinction every day.
But within those numbers, percentages and “evidence” there is something even more important to consider –– and that is context.
This issue came up after we wrote a post on the recent Organic Consumers Association (OCA) study which measured and reported trace toxins found in organic, “green” and every day consumer cleaning and beauty products. (Scroll down to read Ecover’s response).
In a forum over here in Israel, people started talking about Ecover and the fact that trace amounts of a chemical called 1,4 dioxane was “found” by the OCA in Ecover’s washing up liquid –– an all-purpose cleaner. And we posted about it. This wasn't the first time TreeHugger posted on the OCA (see USDA Waters Down Organic Standards).
Admitting that we had limited knowledge on what dioxane was, and how it differs between the scary-sounding cancer-linked dioxin, we took on the challenge of writing a post about it. Why? Because it sounded potentially harmful, and some of us over here in Israel use Ecover faithfully day to wash our dishes. If a product costs twice the price of regular dishwashing soap, and in our opinion suds much less than we’d like, we’d expect it to live up to its green reputation.
The commenters in the original post, you will read, had a few things to say about the issue. And we hoped they would. Seventh Generation (thanks for the link guys) posted a long response to the OCA test and the necessity of using dioxane as a surfactant, on their blog. On TreeHugger they wrote:
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.”
A commenter Mike, who is a chemist, said:
dioxin has really nothing to do with 1,4 dioxane. They look structurally similar, but they are not functionally 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.”
Did we jump the gun and rip the green “lid” off a company to maliciously expose an injustice that wasn’t there? Was it wrong to single out Ecover and not one of the dozens of other brands mentioned in the study? Can we trust the findings of the OCA and do they really have our best interests in mind? What do the numbers mean? Are those chemicals really something that are going to influence our health, and the health of the planet, or would we be exposed to them anyway? Can Ecover improve and find ways to become even better for the environment?
These are some questions we’ve been thinking about, and we don’t yet have all the answers. But we do think it’s important to open a dialogue and to not blindly trust the large consumer companies branded “green.” We are sure that Ecover has done remarkable things for the planet, actions which have a knock-on effect in other companies and communities. All we were saying, and will continue to say, is that people, now more than ever, need to make sensible and intelligent green choices on a daily basis.
Will I still buy Ecover? Of course I will.
Ecover’s letter to TreeHugger (printed with permission by Ecover):
Response to TreeHugger Article
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the article written by Karin Kloosterman, “Does Dioxane Blow the Cover Off Ecover’s Green Cover?” To begin, I was incredibly disappointed that it was implied Ecover had a “cover” of any kind. As pioneers and leaders in our industry for nearly thirty years, having paved the way for phosphate free, effective, sustainably made products, it baffles me that we would be so carelessly lumped in as dishonest or harmful.
As Karin notes in her article, the 2.4 parts per MILLION found in our dish soap, is a byproduct of the production process, not an ingredient we’ve secretly added. In addition, we disclose all ingredients in our products on our website. This is not required by law but an extra step we take to give more clarity to the users of our products.
Secondly, I believe we have a case of apples and oranges in Ms. Kloosterman’s comparison of us to Dr. Bronner’s products. There is a reason those products (and others) did not surface in this test performed by the Organic Consumers – they do not make a dish soap! The necessary ingredients to make an effective dish soap versus an all purpose cleaner are completely different. While we appreciate what Dr. Bronner’s mission was, it is ridiculous to compare the two.
Ecover has ranked in the upper echelons of product comparisons time and again while remaining competitively priced. We do this all while manufacturing our products in the world’s FIRST ecological factory. Our factories are made from sustainable materials, making products from sustainable sources in a manner that is energy efficient.
We are dedicated to improving our products and production methods, whether that be efficacy or impact on the environment. We have always had the environment at the core of our values and we always will. Let’s not lose sight of all our missions, to make sustainable alternatives available to everyone. We are a work in progress and we are proud of our work thus far.
Thank you again for this opportunity.
Warm regards,
Kipling Rutherford-Sameshima
Assistant Marketing Manager
(Image credit: underhindered by talent)
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Use These Green Time Savers for the Holiday Season
- Eco Dishwashing Liquid Works As Well as Cascade
- The Disappearing Male
- The Last of His Kind: The Lamented Life of Lonesome George
While I don't think you jumped the gun on reporting the results of finding 1,4 dioxane in the natural dish soaps, this blog posting isn't really helpful, because all it really says to me is that 1,4 dioxane and dioxin aren't the same and Ecover says there's nothing to worry about.
This blog entry doesn't provide useful information, like the fact that IARC and the NTP classifies 1,4 dioxane as possibly carcinogenic to humans because it is a known animal carcinogen. That's a helpful bit of information one can learn by looking up the National Toxicolgy Program's Eleventh Report on Carcinogens:
[url="http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s080diox.pdf"]available here[/url]
Secondly, people need to know what a part per million might be in terms of risk. A few parts per million might mean nothing if your reference is ethanol. Ethanol is the same alochol that you drink. It is linked to carcinogenicity, but a beer has 56 thousand parts per million ethanol in it, so it takes a whole lot of ethanol for it to be a problem (obviously). Whereas the state of California set the maximum allowable contamiant level for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) at .005 parts per BILLION. So 2 pp MILLION of TCP would be a big concern!
So while Ecover might be correct that such low levels aren't a cause for concern, there's no reason to take their word for it, either. I have a bottle of Ecover by my kitchen sink. I'm not going to stop using it, since I try to wash the dish soap OFF my dishes before using them again (again, an elemntary point that could be made.) But that doesn't mean I don't find the presence of 1,4 dioxane potentially problematic, and I think it's something they really need to look into.
I apologize for the several typos in the above comment. I wish they were edit-able. I guess it's easy to tell it's the end of the day and time to go home.
This was completely irresponsible "journalism". Your questions at the end are inane.
This brings up a bigger problem. The authors admit that they didn't know much about dioxane, but they 'took oin the challenge of writing a post about it.' Well, why didn't they 'take on the challenge' of doing their research first? It benifits no one to say 'We don't know, but this might be killing you.' and then claim you are simply opening up a discussion. People are all-to ready to accept your statement as fact. You will be quoted as an authority in other forums "Treehugger said for a fact that dioxane will cause cancer." when you did no such thing. I am already disheartened by the lack of scientific basis in too many posting on the ecology boards. The assumption is that if something has a chemically sounding name it must be dangerous and going to kill you. The chemical name is nothing more than a description of the structure of the molecule. There are famous studies where water is called di-hydrogen oxide and people are told it was in just about everything you ate.The people assumed that this was a dangerous chemical and were willing to sign petitions to ban it. We can't have a reasonable dialog if no one is bothering to find out if something is truly dangerous before they raise the alarm.
How does a toxin make a product not "green?" People aren't green, the planet is. Does it damage the environment or just people, like COUNTLESS organic and naturally occurring chemicals and compounds. Is ocean water green? It's toxic. It will kill you if you drink it. Is solar radiation (sunlight) a green source of energy? It will give you nasty cancer ...
We're starting to confuse green with healthy, just as we have organic. (as in organic soda and organic marshmallows)
I also found the comment about the Ecover product not sudsing to your liking a bit out of journalistic taste. Here's TH half-righting an alleged wrong, and throwing in a sucker punch to boot. What exactly is the purpose of this article – to further damage a green company? TH itself has purported that suds do not equal cleaning power. Personally, I love their products and used them for many happy years, and would turn to them again were I to need a commercial product.
Tim, while I understand your point I don't really agree. Healthy is integral to "green". Healthy people use less resources and require less drugs that then get excreted into the environment thus poisoning animals, fish, birds and other humans. That is just one example. In so many ways sparing humans and animals from toxic exposure is paramount to creating a greener society. It is also a mindset.
My biggest issue with the dioxane issue is that the way the issue has been publicized makes it seem like an issue that is isolated to "organic" and "natural" products. In truth, if you tested the conventional stuff, you'd find a whopping dose of carcinogens and toxins. Making non-toxic and eco-friendly products is a tall order and there will be pitfalls.
Lastly, if you check out EWG's cosmetics database, you will find many products that have otherwise been touted as "natural" and therapeutic, identified as potential carcinogens, neurotoxins and irritants. We all have to use our own discretion and make the best choices we can. If consumers take back their Ecover and purchase palmolive instead, they are missing some critical information.