A dirty secret lurks in common household cleaning products, according to new independent lab testing on 20 popular products that found nearly all contained undisclosed toxic chemicals.

Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women's Voices for the Earth, says consumers deserve to know to what chemicals they're being exposed so they can avoid products that may cause allergic reactions or serious long-term health problems such as cancer, birth defects or pregnancy complications.

"Currently, there are no requirements for them to label or disclose any ingredient. Some of the companies are doing this voluntarily, but they're still keeping some chemicals hidden. So, we do think there needs to be mandatory ingredient disclosure laws, so that people know what they're being exposed to."

Some of the products tested in the report include Tide Free & Gentle detergent, which is marketed to people with sensitive skin but was found to contain a probable human carcinogen. Simple Green Naturals was found to contain phthalates, a chemical associated with reproductive disorders and birth defects. Allergens were found in several products marketed as "fragrance-free."

The report coincides with national legislation called the Cleaning Product Right-to-Know Act, which is being introduced today in Congress, Scranton says.

"This is a bill, very simply, that will require cleaning-product companies to put on the label of all their cleaning products all the ingredients that they include."

Some manufacturers have maintained that the ingredients in their products are proprietary.

A fact sheet with a list of products tested and results is online at womensvoices.org.


get more stories like this via email

A New Mexico group seeking financial compensation for those suffering negative health effects from the 1945 Trinity atomic bomb tests has two more years to make its case.

The federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), now extended two years, provides money to people harmed, either from uranium mining or the atomic tests.

The government currently only recognizes "downwinders" who live in Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

Tina Cordova, co-founder of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium, said if expanded by Congress, it could benefit those who suffer from cancer-related illnesses traced to the radioactive fallout.

"Plutonium that was used in the bomb, overused in the bomb at Trinity -- they didn't know how much was going to be necessary -- has a half-life 24,000 years or 7,000 generations," Cordova pointed out.

The two-year extension of RECA by President Joe Biden last month will allow the consortium more time to seek eligibility for New Mexicans whose lives were affected. Tomorrow, the Downwinders Consortium holds its 13th annual candlelight vigil, and a town hall where some will share their stories.

In 1945, the Department of Energy called the Trinity nuclear test site "remote," but thousands of people lived within 50 miles and were exposed to the first-ever nuclear blast.

Cordova noted it has also been revealed government agencies only conducted tests when the wind was blowing east, to avoid contaminating Las Vegas or Los Angeles. She feels in some ways, New Mexico was targeted, and it was not just a one-time event.

"We've been so overexposed to radiation because of all of this, and New Mexico truly is a sacrifice zone," Cordova asserted. "We have the cradle-to-grave process taking place here. They open up the earth and take out the uranium. We have over 1,000 abandoned uranium mines and mill sites in Navajo, Laguna and Acoma Pueblo."

The Environmental Protection Agency is currently working with federal, state and tribal partners to address abandoned uranium mines and identify the parties responsible for cleanup, including on the Navajo Nation and New Mexico's Grants Mining District.

Starting this month, chemical companies will resume being taxed for cleanup of areas with a lot of leftover toxic waste, also known as Superfund sites. It follows a slowdown in getting sites removed from the federal list.

The tax was reinstated last Friday after it was allowed to expire in the mid-1990s. The recent changes were authorized under the bipartisan infrastructure law signed by President Joe Biden.

For a quarter century, said Emily Rogers, Zero Out Toxics campaign advocate for the Public Interest Research Group, the program languished by leaning on taxpayers as opposed to having the industry foot the bill.

"The funds that were used to clean up Superfund sites dropped precipitously," she said, "and with that drop, also the number of sites that were cleaned each year dropped precipitously."

Annual completion of Superfund projects has fallen to single digits in recent years. Iowa has 11 sites on the National Priorities List. Supporters have said the tax will provide $14 billion over the next decade to accelerate this work. Industry groups lobbied against the move, and PIRG has estimated similar opposition amid efforts to reinstate a tax for petroleum companies.

Beyond Iowa, Rogers sai Superfund sites can be found all over the country, especially in marginalized communities. She said one in six Americans lives within three miles of these hazardous sites.

"The waste at these sites can cause some really serious human health effects," she said, "so that's one reason we've been working so hard to get funding reinstated."

Under the growing threat of climate change, PIRG noted that many of these sites are at greater risk of flooding, potentially spreading contamination into nearby communities. The program's funding is used whenever the party at fault for the pollution can't be located or lacks the money to pay for the cleanup.

California lawmakers are considering a bill today to cut down on single-use plastics that are choking the nation's landfills and oceans.

Senate Bill 54 would require a 25% reduction in plastic packaging and single-use food-service ware over the next 10 years. It is the result of a compromise reached between environmental groups and the plastics industry.

Dr. Anja Brandon, U.S. plastics policy analyst for the Ocean Conservancy, said the scale of the solution needs to reflect the scale of the problem.

"I worked with other Ocean Conservancy scientists to estimate that this reduction would lead to 23 million tons less plastic in the state over the next 10 years," she said, "which is equivalent to nearly 26 times the weight of the Golden Gate Bridge."

Each year, more than 11 million metric tons of plastic is dumped into the ocean from land-based sources globally. The United States only recycles about 10% of its plastic.

The bill passed the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources Tuesday and goes before the Appropriations Committee today. It passed the state Senate in January. Some environmental groups oppose the bill, saying it doesn't go far enough.

Brandon said the bill would require manufacturers to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up the plastic in the environment.

"It would also require that all producers of all single-use plastic packaging be held responsible financially for managing the full lifecycle of their packaging," she said, "through what's called extended producer responsibility."

A similar proposal already has qualified for the November ballot - one that would move the timeline up to 2030 and ban polystyrene foam containers. The ballot measure is opposed by the American Chemistry Council and the California Business Roundtable.