The Clean Cleaner Cover-up

Why are vinegar and lemon juice state secrets?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


It’s hard to believe, but people did clean before the advent of Comet, X-14, and 2000 Flushes. Once upon a grime, they concocted home solutions with simple ingredients like borax, soap flakes, baking soda, and vinegar. Now these cleaning originals have gone retro.

A small but growing faction of the cleaning public swears by such low-tech mixtures. They turn to baking soda for its scouring power as well as its deodorizing prowess. They attack soap scum with vim and vinegar; windows with lemon juice and water. (Consumer Reports even found that water alone works better than half the glass cleaners on the market.)

Madness you say? Blame it on Uncle Sam. Since the early ’80s, state and local government agencies (along with many health and environmental groups) have promoted mix-at-home cleaning recipes through pamphlets, kits, and Web sites. They want Americans to cut back on the millions of gallons of commercial cleaning products used every month, which, they say, contribute to health problems, chemical injuries, and water pollution.

It seems an elegant solution: protect the planet, reduce health risks, and save money to boot (mix-at-homes are dirt cheap). Yet these alternative cleaners are causing quite a dustup.

Manufacturers say government agencies shouldn’t push homemade recipes because, unlike commercial products, they haven’t met testing standards. “Government agencies have a responsibility to put out information based on science,” says Clorox spokeswoman Sandy Sullivan.

Led by the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, a powerful lobby representing the likes of Clorox, Procter & Gamble, and Dow Chemical, manufacturers have tried to discourage government agencies from disseminating information on cleaning alternatives. In California, the state Environmental Protection Agency will no longer provide material on a cleaner—not even a simple vinegar and water mixture—unless it’s been deemed “accurate” and “appropriate” by a technical advisory committee. “We’re basically erring on the side of caution,” says Chris Peck of CalEPA. “Part of it is liability.”

Others say alternative cleaners are simply toxic to corporate profits. In a test conducted at the University of Minnesota, borax (a natural mineral mined in California’s Death Valley) beat out Clorox Clean-Up for removing bathroom grime. “[Homemade cleaners] can hurt sales,” says Ken Steffenson of the Washington Toxics Coalition. “That’s the bottom line.”

But the alternative cleaning faithful are also vulnerable to attack. They have circulated bum recipes, and not all formulas are as effective as they claim. For example, tests have shown that borax, often recommended as a disinfectant, does not get rid of microbial contamination, including salmonella and E. coli. (No mix-at-home cleaners meet the EPA’s testing requirements for disinfectants, but commercial cleaners have failed these tests as well.) The key is to get recipes from reliable sources.

There are also commercially produced “natural” cleaners. Selling points are that they are free of dyes, fragrances, and water pollutants such as phosphates and chlorine. And many are vegetable-based and biodegrade quickly. A number of these products are formulated with the same ingredients as homemade varieties—but sell at premium prices.

Of course, manufacturers of many mainstream cleaners claim that their products are not harmful to people or the planet. “Household products that are prepared by home-cleaning manufacturers are designed to be safe [for people] and safe to go down the drain,” says Sullivan. “Why are options necessary?”

The truth is, there are only loose federal definitions for claims like “biodegradable” and “environmentally friendly.” And because formulas are “trade secrets,” manufacturers only need to disclose a cleaner’s active or pesticidal ingredients (those that kill living organisms such as germs or bacteria) on a label. Yet the inert stuff, often more than 95 percent of what’s in the bottle, can still be toxic to humans and pets.

Whether buying a cleaning product at Whole Foods or Safeway, consumers must depend on the honesty of manufacturers, who may eventually come clean. Until then, people will continue to mix their own tried-and-true cleaners. At least they know what they’re dealing with.

Greener Living:


  • Webside recycling
  • Head to www.1800cleanup.org to get a list (by zip code) of places to take recyclables, including used motor oil.

  • Power plants
  • Placing two or three plants per 100 sq. ft. in your home can filter out indoor air pollutants such as formaldehyde. Top purifiers include the peace lily, areca palm, lady palm, ficus, and golden pothos.

    WE'LL BE BLUNT

    It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

    The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

    Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

    The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

    Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

    And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

    Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

    If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

    payment methods

    WE'LL BE BLUNT

    It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

    The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

    Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

    The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

    Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

    And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

    Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

    If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

    payment methods

    We Recommend

    Latest

    Sign up for our free newsletter

    Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

    Get our award-winning magazine

    Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

    Subscribe

    Support our journalism

    Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

    Donate