REGULAR
intentionally harming her? The ‘Bad Guys’ surely, those dastardly chemical companies, who unscrupulously devise formulations, with scant regard for the environment.
Consumers need to
understand that all substances are just arrangements of atoms of the same 90-odd
chemical elements of which the planet is made up.
This is a complete falsehood, where the emotive use of the word ‘chemical’ seems to conjure up negative connotations. So if we make that chemical ‘green’ it seems in some way to make it “nicer, kinder, softer” and generally more palatable.
intentions, good ethical standards, legal compliance and corporate social responsibility; in addition to reflecting a desire to achieve whiter than white laundry fabrics. The other colour of course is green.
No day goes by without a business customer or wholesale distributor partner sales agent asking us to what extent our business is environmentally sound, and are our chemicals “green”? RP Adam is not unique in this respect, and although we wish there was a standard answer to this vague question – there is not. We recognise that our customer base requires concise answers but it is a complex issue and reducing all environmental considerations down to one basic question “are your products green?” is simplistic. Manufacturers can and will provide answers to better informed (more specific) questions.
So where does this originate from? Today, it is not difficult for us to associate the intrinsic properties of a so called “green” cleaning chemical with its relationship to Mother Nature herself – what a sacred cow! Let’s face it, who on earth would even dare
www.tomorrowscleaning.com
The fact of the matter is that cleaning chemical manufacturers, like any other commercial entity are in existence to make profit, but as well as being one of the most regulated industries on the planet they also produce products that make our lives healthier and the world a better place to live in. It would be naïve to suggest that the reputable chemical manufacturer would not have a very close eye on minimising environmental impacts and controlling emissions to try to protect the environment in which we all live. But this poses an interesting paradox.
Our desire to make modern life easier, healthier and more comfortable has been accelerating at an exponential rate for decades, trying to feed our insatiable desire for pristine and hygienically safe surfaces as well as clean and fragrant clothes. But the pursuit of this standard has meant that developed world, modern lifestyles need the resources of several planets to maintain them using today’s methods and technologies.
It is the consumer (yes, us) who has been the driving force of urbanisation, industrialisation and associated pollution over centuries which has hurt Mother Nature so much; in effect, biting the hand that feeds us. But paradoxically, the consumer behaviour
that has caused the problem has altered the way chemical companies are legally allowed to formulate, manufacture, package and distribute chemicals in as safe and environmentally responsible manner as possible.
As we have become more aware of negative impacts, we have also increased the number of misconceptions regarding environmental responsibility. For example, how important is the solution in the bottle, compared to the packaging, distribution and cleaning process involved in its life-cycle? It represents a tiny part of the total sustainability equation and consumers should be aware of this red herring. It is important, but context is important too.
Another example is the gradual rise of the “Man versus Nature” debate, where man-made things tend to be associated with factories and industry and thus, for some, symbolising the “evils” of pollution and capitalism. Some see man- made things as ‘interfered with’, and as such surely must bring a level of risk which is somehow greater or less acceptable than the risk posed by natural things. But categorising (good) ‘natural’ substances as an alternative to using (bad) ‘chemicals’ is a falsehood. Consumers need to understand that all substances are just arrangements of atoms of the same 90-odd chemical elements of which the planet is made up.
Objective scientific assessment shows that ‘natural’ chemicals – meaning the ones that occur in nature – are not routinely and intrinsically safer than man-made ‘synthetic’ ones. Consider ethanol, which we also drink as alcohol – is it intrinsically safer just because it is made ‘naturally’? As we have said before, toxicity is only a matter of dose.
In the second part of our series we will explore the ‘Man-Made versus Natural’ topic further, along with the concept of ‘Sustainability’. Be sure to read about it in the next issue.
To read more musings from Max on the cleaning industry and beyond, check out the RP Adam blog at
www.thearpalgroupblog.com.
www.rpadam.co.uk Tomorrow’s Cleaning September 2015 | 31
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84