The biodegradability of detergents Greenest ... or not ... not great ..

[Christophe]

An INC study highlights the "toxicity potential" of all detergents including "green" detergents.

All detergents are toxic to the environment, including those that present themselves as "green". The conclusions of the tests carried out for two years by the National Institute of Consumption (INC) and several water agencies are final. The magazine 60 million consumers published the full result Thursday, October 26 in its November issue.

The ecotoxicity of the wash baths (ie what goes to the sewer after the laundry is washed) of 35 common detergents was analyzed. Three laboratory tests measured their effects on the life of microcrustaceans and the proliferation of algae. The context was that of a moderately soiled laundry and moderately "hard" water. The dosage instructions of the manufacturers have been observed. The result ? All detergents, liquid, powder or tablet, have a destructive or disruptive effect on nature when they leave the treatment plants and flow into rivers and the sea.

Four liquid detergents (including Epsil de Leclerc, Skip Air Activ 'Unilever ...) were even assessed as having the potential to "very high toxicity for the environment". "It was calculated that, for these products, the washing bath should be diluted 36 times for it to degrade properly in nature ", says Robert Victoria, engineer at INC. "We have doubts about the test protocol", replies Sylvie Siest, scientific director of Unilever France. (nde: necessarily ...)

Difficult to specify the diagnosis: experts are trying to establish correlations between each molecule declared and its toxicity. The exercise is complex, especially "when you don't know the full list of components," says Victoria.

Laundry is a sophisticated product that contains 15 to 25 molecules, often from petroleum. Mention may be made of enzymes, which digest stains, or surfactants (of which the oldest, soap), which wet the dirt and then disperse it.

THE "NOT SUFFICIENT" ECOLABEL

While most detergents no longer contain the phosphates which directly endanger the life of fish and are the source of foul odors in rivers (they will be officially banned on July 1, 2007), their overall toxicity potential remains "high" . This is a surprise, all the greater since even the detergents presented as more respectful of nature (L'Arbre vert, Maison verte, Ecover) also display "high toxicity".

A priori, Novamex (L'Arbre vert) is however the only French company with Salveco (Green asset, not tested) to respect the specifications of the ecolabel defined by the European Commission since 1992 and identified by an official logo. After analysis, we discover that this does not promise much more than a "reduction of products from petrochemicals", a "limitation of substances dangerous for the environment", "increased biodegradability", a "reduction of packaging" and ... an "efficient wash". Other products, like at Maison verte, self-declare on their labels "without phosphates", endowed with a "biodegradability superior to the regulations" and sold in "100% recyclable packaging" ...

In fact, these "green" brands take into account the overall life cycle of the product (weight of the packaging, ecotoxicity of each ingredient but not of the whole, energy consumption, waste production, etc.). "We are trying to do better than the European ecolabel, which is going in the right direction but which is not sufficient," argues Gilles Olivier for L'Arbre vert.

But is it sufficient, even when, like the Ecover brand, the detergent contains only molecules from the plant world? Proof is given that, as it stands, these statements do not constitute a guarantee for customers who are thinking of buying painless products for biodiversity. "Consumers have the impression of having insurance, when there is none", confirms Marie-Jeanne Husset, editorial director of 60 million consumers.

Since October 2005, the regulatory requirements in terms of biodegradability have been increased (final biodegradability of 60% in 28 days), "but this barrier, too low, exempts important families of surfactants", worries the independent collective Excenevex , a group of 60 scientists working specifically on the issue of cleaning products and respect for the environment. The only eco-neutral products would be Indian "soap nuts". Problem: they have, according to the INC, the efficiency of a simple brewing with hot water.

Florence amalou
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0 ... 947,0.html

[Christophe]

1) What about the BioTop products that we have just offered in the store?

https://www.econologie.com/shop/index.ph ... ucts_id=65
https://www.econologie.com/shop/index.ph ... ucts_id=64

2) The last sentence is particularly disconcerting ... to all those here who use soapnuts, do you think this statement is true?

[freddau]

Have you ever washed your clothes without nuts?

There is the question.

In the trial of 60Million consumers.
They did like any good test protocol ), a white wash without detergent.

You have to try, since I don't have nuts.

A few years ago, South Koreans had invented a washing process without detergent / petroleum by ionizing water or something like that.
They said it worked !!!!!!

If anyone has heard of this process ??

[Charlotte]

Have they tried house soap with Marseille soap (soap, percarbonate)?

[zac]

A few years ago, South Koreans had invented a washing process without detergent / petroleum by ionizing water or something like that.
They said it worked !!!!!!

If anyone has heard of this process ??

Hello

A heated ultrasonic tank, with a pump and a filter it works since the 20s in industrial laundromat.

this was the method used in chicago slaughterhouses in 1925, given the stub of laundry it must be efficient.

@+

[dupontelle]

The information that you related in your article on the topic of ecological detergents (Wednesday, November 1) deeply challenged me. I imagine that the publication of this article is not accidental. Indeed, the use of ecological products on a daily basis is a crucial issue for the preservation of our environment. Reading your article, however, makes me think that you did not have the same logic as consumers who care about the environment. Your sources being exclusively oriented in favor of large industrialists on the market.

Your brief refers to the dossier of 60 million consumers: "the least polluting detergents", which classifies them by efficiency !! Did the inconsistency disturb you to the point of resuming the results? Ariel is classified number 1 while this detergent is classified red on the VIGITOX guide published by GreenPeace (for free download on the site).
You quote the president of afise worthy representing the major detergent manufacturers. Alain de Cordemoy: "This type of test tends to show that there is no fundamental difference between so-called green products and other products on the market". It clearly encourages consuming without moderation Skip, Ariel and other non-ecological products rather than ecological cleaners less harmful to the environment. The scientific director of the Unilever group says she has "doubts about the testing protocols implemented by 60 million consumers" in an article from the world.

I remind you that the European ECOLABEL guarantees an efficiency at least equal to that of a non-ecological competitor on the market (cf. specifications of the eco-label, http://ec.europa.eu/ecolabel), it is currently the most reliable basis for ecology.

I invite you to consider this theme from an ecological perspective, with different points of view.

[Christophe]

I believe there is a misunderstanding: this article follows the study of 60 million consumers! In no case are we the authors of this study which simply been quoted for informational purposes only! This is precisely to launch a debate and your reaction fits perfectly into this objective.

For information, we defend natural alternatives to industrial solutions such as the nuts of washing ou BIOTOP products

[Woodcutter]

[..] All detergents, liquid, powder or tablet, have a destructive or disruptive effect on nature when they leave the treatment plants and flow into rivers and the sea.[...]

I do not understand this passage from the article ...
Have the tests reproduced what happens in a STEP? We then talk about diluting the washing bath 36 times, but do we know the proportion of water from detergents compared to the total volume entering a WWTP?

Finally, I also don't understand what dupontelle means.
And to be honest, I am a bit dubious about the tone used and the underlying allusions ...

[Christophe]

Hush Bucheron, we had a tough time yesterday ...

Note Dupontelle and Vivelauto on 1 meme forum it should be funny ...

Otherwise, I did not understand this remark either, because a WWTP is precisely supposed to TREAT (and make more or less "rejectable" in nature) water, right? That is to say by ridding them not only of sludge or bacteria but also of chemical filth ...

Another falling illusion?

[Woodcutter]

[...] The ecotoxicity of the washing baths (that is to say what goes to the sewer once the laundry has been washed) of 35 common detergents was analyzed. Three laboratory tests measured their effects on the life of microcrustaceans and the proliferation of algae. The context was that of a moderately soiled laundry and moderately "hard" water. The dosage instructions of the manufacturers have been observed. The result ? All detergents, liquid, powder or tablet, have a destructive or disruptive effect on nature when they leave the treatment plants and flow into rivers and the sea.

When we talk about toxicity, it is normally an effect that disturbs or destroys the life, plants or animals of the receiving environment.
For the microcrustaceans taken as an example, we can therefore think that it kills them or that it very seriously disrupts their life cycle.
On the other hand, I do not understand (yet !!!) the terms "algae proliferation"?
Does the test measure the toxicity detergents on the algae or the fact that, on the contrary, they facilitate their proliferation which is the opposite effect and which is caused by an excess nutrient which is commonly the phosphorus ? (but there may be others)

"We have doubts about the test protocol", replies Sylvie Siest, scientific director of Unilever France. (nde: necessarily ...)

Well ... To tell you the truth, too, given the way it is presented ... There are things that are not very consistent, but more information is needed on the protocol and the results.

PS for the cranky of all hair : the fact of having a doubt does not make me a "sold" to the laundry groups, thank you for respecting my right to neutrality and to questioning ...

A priori, Novamex (L'Arbre vert) is however the only French company with Salveco (Green asset, not tested) to comply with the eco-label specifications defined by the European Commission since 1992 and identified by an official logo. After analysis, we discover that it does not promise much more than "reduction of products from petrochemicals", "limitation of substances dangerous for the environment", "increased biodegradability", "reduction of packaging" and ... an "efficient wash". [...]

Did dupontelle read this?