down to earth, online 13/04/09 5:17 PM

VOL 14 ,NO 25 Monday, May 23, 2005

Headline : Wash out

Intro:In the guise of making washing easy, detergents are directing a chemical fusillade at the environment in the
absence of regulation, discovers SURESH BABU S V

Detergents, their environment concerns and the regulations to control them have evolved side by side in the
developed world. Detergents were developed during the Second World War. They became popular in the late 1950s
and the first regulation to control their environmental impact was enacted in 1961 in Germany. So what’s there in
detergents that harms the environment? Detergents are not easily biodegradable; more so the detergents of the
1950s. Their use led to high levels of foams in some European rivers and this triggered the first set of regulations in
Europe to control the types of surfactants (or surface active agents) used in the detergents. This regulation pushed
the detergent industry to replace the poorly biodegradable complex-chain surfactants with linear-chain surfactants.
Then came the phosphates. Phosphates are used in detergents as builders to soften the water so that less
surfactants are required for doing the cleaning. But phosphates also cause eutrophication in waterbodies (nutrient
enrichment promoting excessive aquatic plant growth whose decomposition later reduces the dissoved oxygen level in
the waterbodies necessary for the survival of fish and other aquatic organisms). The eutrophication of the Great
Lakes in the US and Canada in the 1970s, pressurised governments into introducing regulations on phosphate
content in detergents. The US and Canada signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement ( GLWQA) in 1972.

GLWQA built in specific schedules for control and reduction of phosphorous loading. It identified municipal sewage as
the main source of phosphorous. It found most of the phosphorous content came from detergents and human waste.
Among the secondary sources were industrial wastes and agricultural runoff, including fertilisers and animal wastes.
The primary recommendation was to reduce phosphorous content in detergents and thereby reduce the total
quantities of phosphorous based detergents discharged into the Great Lakes system. GLWQA agreed to reduce
phosphorous to 2.2 per cent of detergent weight or phosphate compounds to 5 per cent by weight. Under a November
1987 amendment, this was cut to 0.5 per cent. By the 1990s, phosphate was totally eliminated in some US states.
The industry tried to challenge this legislation in court over several years but could not overturn it. Several other
countries followed this path (see table : Global controls).

In recent years, regulation of detergent industry has moved towards regulating the toxicity of various constituents of
detergents. In this regard, the 2004 European Detergent Regulation Number 48/2004 is the most comprehensive.
This regulation introduced the concept of ultimate biodegradability of surfactants, which is achieved when surfactants
are broken down by microorganisms in the presence of oxygen, resulting in the formation of carbon dioxide, water
and mineral salts. It also fixed limits and emphasised potential toxicity of persistent metabolites from detergents. The
regulation forced the detergent industry to disclose information about the various constituents of its products and label
the recommended dose required for cleaning. For instance, surfactants, bleaching agents (both oxygen and chlorine
based), zeolites, enzymes, disinfectants, optical brighteners, perfumes, preservative agents and other allergic
fragrances should be listed.

Faced with tough regulations and consumer pressure, European detergent manufacturers under the banner of “Code
of Good Environmental Practice” presented in 1998, a framework for a self-imposed obligation aimed at achieving a
saving of five per cent of energy per wash; a reduction of 10 per cent of detergents per capita; 10 per cent packaging
and 10 per cent reduction in poorly degradable organic ingredients per capita by 2002. As a consequence, in the EU
consumption levels of detergents have decreased from 10 kg per capita per year in 1996 to 9.16 kg in 2001. This
means the per capita consumption per wash decreased by almost 30 grammes over the same period.

So regulations have worked in reducing the environmental impact of detergents in the developed countries. Why
hasn’t India thought of similar regulations?

Global controls

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/fullprint.asp Page 1 of 3
down to earth, online 13/04/09 5:17 PM

Laws and regulations impacting on detergents

Year Law/regulation Theme/comments
1961 Germany, Law on Surfactants in Detergents Primary degradation of
and Cleaning Products surfactants
1973 European Council Directive on the General requirements for
Biodegradability of Anionic Surfactants biodegradability
1975/87 Germany, Law on Detergents and Cleaning Quantitative regulations*
Products
1970- Europe, regulations to limit phosphates in Laws or voluntary
91 various countries agreements
1972- USA, regulations on the use of phosphates in Bans or limitations
88 various states
1989 European Commission Recommendation for the Quantitative data on
Labelling of Detergents ingredients of more than
0.2 per cent
1991/98 Germany, Packaging Ordinance Prevention of waste,
recycling
1995 European Commission Decision on the Eco- Establishing ecological
Label for Laundry Detergents and performance criteria
1998 European Commission Recommendation on Conservation targets
Good Environmental Practice for Household
Laundry Detergents
*Control of the release of detergent ingredients e.g phosphates
Source: Anon 2000, Zeolites for Detergents as Nature Intended, CEFIC

---------- BOX:Surprising statistic ----------

Everybody uses them. In every home, the ubiquitous pack or jar of detergent lurks, ostensibly leading
to improved hygiene and shining cleanliness. India’s use of detergent has doubled and trebled many
times since it took over from the bar of soap. While its per capita use is still not much in comparison
with detergent use in the West, the higher number of consumers here immediately puts us in the top
bracket as far as the overall use goes.

Another surprising statistic is that washing time has actually gone up since washing machines arrived,
contrary to expectations from the so-called labour-saving devices. And more washing is often more
water being used up, despite claims otherwise from different detergents and washing machine
manufacturers.

All this adds to the environmental impact. When detergent-laced water flows out from homes, it
reaches the pipeline and thereafter the waterbodies.

Higher detergent use is a cause for concern. With every household, from those in A list cities to those
in the B towns, putting detergents on their shopping list, it becomes vital to see what this common
household product is all about. Strangely enough, while manufacturers have gone ballistic on the
advertising gimmicks and promise every kind of special wash, information on actual, factual content is
hard to get. Unlike regulations in Europe, the US and Canada, India has no rules that make disclosure
(of ingredients used) on pack mandatory by the manufacturers of detergents. In other words, they can
put in anything, but we’ll never know. Call that an informed choice?

The funny thing is, we do have voluntary standards. But companies just don’t want to go for them. Not
even manufacturers that have abided by regulations and even opted for voluntary ecological labelling
under EU guidelines. Getting the standard certification would involve disclosure of content, more lucid
labels and a certain commitment to environmental safety. Not surprisingly, not a single company has
an eco-mark in this country.

It’s time the industry came clean. And time the Indian consumers demanded more from the detergents

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/fullprint.asp Page 2 of 3
down to earth, online 13/04/09 5:17 PM

they pay so much for. In money. But also in health and environment costs.

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/cover.asp?foldername=20050531&filename=anal&sid=7&sec_id=7

Back

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/fullprint.asp Page 3 of 3