Last week, a UK-based consumer group called Which? published a study stating that manufacturers of “green” household cleaners were “greenwashing,” or making ecological claims that couldn’t be substantiated by the evidence provided.  Ecover was among the companies implicated in the study.

Although The Guardian reported the findings, they failed to highlight the study’s primary flaw: when Which? gave the companies in the study the opportunity to respond to their accusations, our responses were limited to 50 words or less, which is insufficient to explain our 30 years of experience in studying the complexities of biodegradability and environmental impact.

Ironically, that lack of clarity is one of the Which? studies primary complaints.  As their cited green expert, John Twitchen, said:

“Products targeting green consumers have a responsibility to be green and unambiguous. While claims may be scientifically proven, the evidence has to be accessible to the average consumer.”

We agree that green companies have a responsibility to be unambiguous.  But we also think that any study investigating the ambiguity of our claims would have afforded us more than 50 words of explanation.

Ecover has posted Which?’s questions and our unabridged responses on our UK website plus we’ve reprinted a summary of our responses here for your review.  And our CEO, Mick Bremans, has posted his own personal response to the incident here.

We invite you to draw your own conclusion based on all available information, rather than Which?’s truncated report.

Ecover to Which?: Additional information to justify Ecover’s claims – 17th March 2010

1) Ecover Claim: “Fast and complete biodegradability”

Expert opinion from Which?: The claim is true but is still greenwash as all detergents meet this requirement under law – the same would apply to the market leaders. The Q&As supplied say that petrochemically derived surfactants are often poorly degradable but while this might have been true 30 years ago it is not true any longer.

Ecover Opinion:

The Ecover laboratory selects its raw materials on the basis of their plant or mineral sourcing, with the highest possible biodegradability and minimum toxicity to the water environment. Ecover goes above and beyond legislation for biodegradability which our 50 word statement explains.

To respond to the Which?s expert’s statements that all detergents meet the requirement of being biodegradable, this is not the case if you take into account all ingredients, as you should, to accurately assess true and complete biodegradability. The EU legislation No. 648/2004 indeed bans the use of surfactants in domestic detergents that fail the ultimate biodegradability test. The legislation covers only the surfactants, but not the complete product as referred to in our 50 word statement. In the recent adaptation (EU, 2009) they added some comments on the non-surfactant organic material, but there is no requirement yet for them to be biodegradable. In fact many ingredients used in washing and cleaning products are not readily biodegradable.

For example, virtually every laundry tablet will contain approximately 4% polycarboxylates and phosphonates as mentioned on the ingredient list on the packaging which is compulsory. These chemicals are generally classified as persistent (see for example the European Ecolabel DID list). These chemicals classified as persistent or not inherently biodegradable are potentially dangerous, as what remains may accumulate in the water system. Ecover never uses persistent chemicals. Optical brighteners are also classified as persistent chemicals which is an additional reason for Ecover to not use them.

Secondly, the biodegradable testing currently assesses aerobic degradation, but does not require anaerobic degradation. Biodegredation in reality happens without oxygen present, so at Ecover we believe it is important to consider biodegradation in anaerobic conditions too. That is why all Ecover products biodegrade quickly and completely in both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. A regularly used surfactant LAS (Linear alkylbenzene sulphonote) in conventional products (8-10% in virtually all laundry tablets) is not anaerobically biodegradable. Sulphonated anionics in general do not degrade anaerobically but are commonly used in numerous cleaning product categories and in toilet descalers.

Surfactants can also absorb onto the surface of solids and get transported to regions where there is no oxygen. It is true that petrochemically derived surfactants are not by definition badly degradable; this however is not the main reason why Ecover chooses to work with plant based surfactants. We believe as a company that all petrochemical derived materials or ingredients (fossil based) are not sustainable because of their fossil nature and the conditions in which they are won.

2) Ecover Claim: Minimum impact on aquatic life

Expert opinion from Which?: That is true of all detergents after they have passed through a sewage works. Only when they leave the waste treatment plant can they enter ‘the environment’. What they are up to this point is irrelevant.

Ecover Opinion:

The statement that all detergents when they are disposed of pass through a sewage plant gives us a false feeling of safety. This is dependent upon the sewage work capacity and all water that exceeds the capacity of the treatment centre goes directly into the rivers. In addition, not all grey water (depending on the region) passes through a filtering system or is connected to a water plant.

The UK is fortunate to have an efficient and well developed water system so when we turn our taps on for a drink or flush the toilet there is always enough water to do the job. To make this happen the water industry supplies around 15 billion litres of water per day to the population of England and Wales. It also collects and disposes of over 10 million tonnes of waste water every day. To do this the industry has over 350,000km of sewers, 6,000 discharges from sewage treatment works and 25,000 intermittent discharges.(1)

As a result the water industry has the potential to have a great impact on the environment. We are completely dependent on water, but the reality is the water system is very fragile. All of our water starts as rain, which we collect from rivers and underground wells, but we take more than the system can bear and then we waste it. We all have a duty to lighten the burden on our water system by trying to keep it pollution free.

Under our kitchen sinks there are a number of products which can cause irreversible damage to our water system. They impact on our system in two ways: by creating an unnecessary burden as more water is required to neutralise their impact, and by polluting our water supply.

Chemicals, including everyday items like cleaning products and washing powder, can all harm our systems when they disappear down the plughole. At Ecover we produce ecological cleaning products for people who want great cleaning results and want to minimise their impact on the environment. Ecover products are based on plant and mineral ingredients derived from renewable sources. This ensures that all Ecover products respect the environment and biodegrade quickly and completely after use.

Critical dilution volumes offer a way for us to understand the burden of cleaning products and toxic chemicals on the water system. They show how much water it takes to neutralise the chemicals contained within a product. Consider these statistics:

• Ecover’s toilet cleaner takes 400 times less water to neutralise than our nearest competitor
• For every wash using non-ecological washing powder it takes 10-12,000 litres of water to treat it until it can re-enter our water system safely. Ecover’s biological washing powder take less than 4000 litres of water for every wash.

If  Which? considers the argument of its independent experts, you could put any toxic ingredient in your product, as long as it’s captured by the sewage treatment. Product transport risks and consumer behaviour would therefore become environmentally irrelevant.

European legislation promotes ingredients with an optimal biodegradation and a low impact on aquatic life. The impact on aquatic life is measured by standardised European testing methods where we can objectively make a difference with our products compared to competitors. The fact that this toxicity is present and probably or may be neutralised by a water treatment plant does not make our statement ‘minimum impact on aquatic life’ any less true. We have a responsibility to lessen the burden on our water system by saving water where possible, and making sure we are not unnecessarily polluting it.