Wednesday, February 18, 2009

updates: cleaners and clementines

i recently started a full time job with breast cancer action, which is great and i'll have more to say on that later. for now i have a couple of quick updates on recent posts. for one, i saw this recipe for candied whole clementines, which i think may be even better than the citrus peels i have been making recently.


second, i was on a conference call last week convened by women's voices for the earth, in which we were discussing the facts and myths of disinfectants. from that call i got a lot of good information, and they provide some great resources about making your own cleaners - as well as information about what's toxic about commercial disinfectants.
in fact, they have everything you need to host a "green cleaning party", including recipes for all your basic household cleaners. so i had to post this update to my last post with those links, because it improves the quality of my information significantly. for instance, they answer the question: how well do they work?
as well as provide information that i realized i was a little foggy on about household cleaners' effects on human health. one of the things i learned recently that really stands out in my mind is that chemical limit standards are set by what supposedly won't harm an adult male - but the effects on children (and pregnant people, elderly, etc) are entirely different - especially if we're talking about exposure to chemicals during critical windows of development, so what we should be doing is setting limits based on the most vulnerable populations. here's some further info on institutional cleaners and children's health, and tips on sanitizing safely for children.
and because i believe in taking action on things that are important, here's an opportunity to sign the petition for safe cleaning products - calling on Proctor and Gamble, Clorox and others to disclose what chemicals are in their cleaning products.
i read this morning that earthjustice is bringing a lawsuit against Proctor and Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive and other companies in new york for the same purpose - to disclose the chemicals in their products, so stay tuned on that front.
as you might expect, the working life is leaving me less time for blogging, but i've still been crafting, so check back for updates.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Kasha,
I wanted to point out an error in your post. Clorox is not named in this lawsuit. In fact, we've been working on a product ingredient communication program for more than a year, starting with our Green Works line of natural cleaners. In January 2009, we announced the expansion of our ingredient communication program to include many other products in the U.S. and Canada. This information is available in the “products” section of our corporate Web site at www.TheCloroxCompany.com. By the end of 2009, our Web site will provide information on ingredients of all our household and professional cleaners, and disinfecting and auto-care products. We include each ingredient that equals or exceeds 1 percent of the contents of the product by weight, listing these ingredients in descending order of prominence. We also list ingredients present at less than 1 percent. I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight for your readers.
Dan Staublin
The Clorox Company
(510) 271-1622

Katy said...

Kasha - you must be doing something right. Your little blog got Clorox's attention.

I'm sure your readers aren't falling for the greenwashing...

Signed,

Happily bleach-free and reef-friendly on Kaua'i

kasha said...

As pointed out by Dan Staublin, from Clorox, I misspoke about the lawsuit - which names Proctor and Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive and two other companies, but not Clorox - I've corrected that now in the post. While I am glad to hear that Clorox (who knew it was based here in Oakland?) is responsive to consumer demand for more healthy and environmentally friendly products - I encourage the company to go ahead and list all of their ingredients right on the packaging, rather than on their website, for consumers to read at the time of purchase (especially since access to internet should not be a barrier to having full information about your cleaners). As pointed out by Erin Thomson, of Women's Voices for the Earth, it's also suspect to provide two lines of products - one that includes hazardous chemicals and one that doesn't. I hate to see the class distinction that protects some customers and not others. Why not make all your products people- and environment-friendly?