Join | Log in

Channel Button
Debate_icon

Home & Garden   >

Cleaning Products

Get a Widget for this title

Should all cleaning products be required to be biodegradable by law?

Results so far:

Yes
79% 405 votes Total: 515 votes
No
21% 110 votes
Yes

It is a curious thing. Environmentally safe solutions for cleaning problems of most types already exist, and some products today are even officially classified as biodegradable, yet the general population does not specifically demand or use that as a criteria for purchasing cleaning products.

For the uninitiated, perhaps a simple explanation is required. The characteristic of biodegradability of any chemical product suggests component chemical compounds, ideally, will break down quickly into harmless elements such as oxygen or hydrogen, or break down to a basic and simple reduced compound of them, for example, to ordinary water, some basic minerals, or other compounds generally considered to be natural and harmless in the environment

Many people are unaware that complex organic compounds in chemical products, when released into the environment, can persist in that form for many years. Freon, a refrigerant, is a good example of the persistence of a chemical compound in the environment.

Even fewer people realize that many organic compounds may not only continue to exist in their original state', but also combine at times with other reactive chemicals in the environment, resulting in ever-increasingly complex compounds.
Toxic chemicals, both organic and inorganic and combinations thereof -can and do form.
Toxicity , i.e. toxic waste -is not the end of the insidious process.

Organic compounds of almost any nature can continue to react. Under ideal conditions of temperature, moisture, or the influence of catalytic agents, thousands of yet unidentified and unknown compounds can be formed.

The fact is, at any given time, nobody really knows how many complex organic chemical substances and combinations of those substances exist in the environment as a result of the offerings of the chemical and petroleum industries.
This complex process, unfortunately, can include chemical compounds found in ordinary everyday cleaning products. Ammonia and ionic surfactants are but two examples.

Does the environmentally concerned portion of the population use environment-friendly products exclusively?

Perhaps more so than the general population, but even individuals who admit they know the consequences of doing so -continue to use products that are harmful to the environment.

Why?

The simple explanation is that unfriendly, non-biodegradable products are conveniently sold in stores everywhere. They are offered in the marketplace, they are familiar to the consumer and easily used, but the key, most importantly- is that they ARE available.

Clearly, if non-biodegradable cleaning products were not offered in the marketplace, they would not be used.

On the surface, it seems very simple. People are creatures of habit. If a cleaning product works satisfactorily when purchased, the hook is set, it will be purchased repeatedly, no matter that it is environmentally harmful and no matter that there may be better products that clean as efficiently -or even do a better job.

Consumers continue to buy old, familiar and harmful products because of branding, habit, and the status quo.

Consumers are introduced to and buy new' products that are not environmentally friendly because of endless advertising by unscrupulous manufacturers that consider only profit made. For these businesses, biodegradability of cleaning products is not an issue.

Inertia of the status quo must be overcome by logic, effort, and the willpower to effect change.

Paradoxically , leaders and politicians of all stripes paint themselves as Environmentally Green' but fail to initiate legislation that would require all cleaning products -manufactured or offered -to be biodegradable.

Chemic al compounds in the environment clearly cause illness and kill people.
It may be convenient to think otherwise, but it is naive to do so.

With the staggering increases in the incidence of cancers that are known to be caused by carcinogenic chemical compounds it seems logical that civilization would minimize use of all chemicals where possible. In today's marketplace, logic apparently does not apply.

Cases of hyper allergies, lung diseases such as emphysema, the mysterious catch-all fibromyalgia' and unusual autoimmune diseases appear to be increasing in number and complexity -and exponentially with our clean' society -as the environment becomes more polluted with ever increasing complex chemical compounds.
The 'cause' of many of these disease conditions is 'reportedly unknown'. Perhaps it is time for money to take second place to the health and well being of human beings.
The truth about some chemical products we use may be frightening.

With the preliminary knowledge base now in existence listing the harmful effects resulting from the endless, arbitrary and willful pouring of chemical compounds into the environment, it is absolutely irresponsible not to insist that cleaning products be required to be biodegradable -by law.

Should all cleaning products be required to be biodegradable by law? A resounding Yes.

#

Learn more about this author, Raymond Alexander Kukkee.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.

No

It goes against the grain to say this, but I believe the short answer is NO. As an engineer, it's sometimes hard to help pandering to processes, and the desire to control everything. I believe that this is a case whose merits are not so clear cut. I know it looks like a self evident YES, because this allows us to feel safe and in control, but in reality I suspect we're standing on thin ice above quicksand.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I can see and feel the fluffy bunny in the ad and that sexy voice-over asking "aren't you in favor of happy fluffy bunnies", "Vote Yes for our new law to keep them safe with biodegradable cleaning products". Lovely visualization, but this smacks of a regulation for the sake of it.

We have regulations on all sorts of things coming out our ears, to the point where they are too numerous to be implemented. They can be ignored with impunity by the reckless on the grounds that the chances of being caught are negligible, while a real unnecessary cost burden is imposed on responsible operators. I agree that problems can crop up anywhere, but that does not necessarily mean the way forward is new regulation.

And it gets worse. We can indulge in hair splitting in relation to the definition of the problem in the first place. Take "biodegradable" for instance. What does it mean? Well dear reader, if you aren't an industrial chemist you may not have realized that all is not as clear as it seems!

In my understanding, biodegradable implies that some sort of decay will occur after the product has been used and then flushed away in the drains. In my devious mind, this triggers concerns about what substances form from the decayed bits, and how they react with other substances already present. Biodegradable could mean a lot of things; let me explain with an example:

About 20 years ago some supermarkets in the UK started to give away free biodegradable plastic shopping bags (whoopee, wasn't that nice!). Part of the blurb from the supermarket was about reducing landfill waste. Well, unfortunately, one of these bags in a landfill dump would last for eternity, because the degradable part only occurred if the bag was exposed to Ultra-Violet light, i.e. sunlight!

I believe that when a bandwagon starts rolling demanding regulation, it is really important that some basic questions are asked. If you're a politician, setting up a steering committee to consult and advise can be real handy here. You can genuinely look busy to the voters without doing anything to bother your rich sponsors!

But seriously, who wants a complete nanny state? We really need to think for ourselves and ask questions:

Why are we doing this?
What do we really want to achieve?
What problem are we trying to solve?
Who are the stakeholders in this, especially the really active ones?
What happens if we do nothing?
Will this issue go away by itself?
How much will it cost?
What is the cost per life saved?
What are the alternatives?
Is the regulation proportional to the risk?
Is the issue already covered by an existing regulation?
Who will pay?
What will we not have when the new regulation comes?

In my opinion, first identify if there is a real problem that needs to be solved and then if real cost effective benefits can be demonstrated. Presuming the argument survived the above, in the case of cleaning products, I believe you need to start by distinguishing between products or applications used in controlled environments and those in general circulation. In industrial environments, companies tend to be watchful of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and monitor their process appropriately. Existing pollution rules govern them; no need for more red tape.

For products aimed at direct sale to the general public, there may be grounds for a more careful examination of what actually happens through the product life cycle, how the product is used, what benefits it confers and what the downside is. Even if there is downside, what guarantee is there the biodegradable version will be safer? Is there a danger that the biodegradable version will bring new dangers, sort of "out of the frying pan into the fire" (like the way the 1960's wonder drug Thalidomide "cured" morning sickness but had a side effect of deformed children).

I don't know what concern triggered this topic; I'm sure it was a genuine concern for safety in one form or another. My point in this article is that we live in a complicated world where everything interacts. For no obvious reason, a good intention can spiral out of control and become a complete mess. By the time the consequences emerge, the whole thing could be a monster out of control.

I believe that overall in terms of regulation, less is more, and that an attempt to micro-manage everything as a panacea for total safety is doomed to failure, so I say NO to this proposal.

Learn more about this author, Bill Clandillon.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.

What is Helium? | Buy Web Content | Contact Us | Privacy | User agreement | DMCA | User Tools | Help | Community | Helium’s Official Blog | Link to Helium

Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA