Nontoxic and DIY cleaning have been major rallying points of the green consumer movement, as evidence mounts that certain chemicals in some products may be unhealthy, even in small doses.

People concerned about the use of chemicals in their homes and schools have long sought out alternative and DIY cleansers that promise nontoxic cleaning. Ingredients in cleansers could contaminate indoor air or lead to more subtle developmental, hormonal, or reproductive effects, according to laboratory studies on those specific ingredients.

In February, environmental groups took several giants of the conventional cleanser industry to court in an effort to enforce a forgotten New York law they say requires the companies to disclose all chemical ingredients in their products. The 1976 law, according to Earthjustice “requires household and commercial cleaner companies selling their products in New York to file semi-annual reports with the state listing the chemicals contained in their products and describing any company research on these chemicals’ health and environmental effects.”

Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of state and national groups: Women’s Voices for the Earth, Environmental Advocates of New York, New York Public Interest Research Group, Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, and American Lung Association in New York.

Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Church and Dwight, and Reckitt-Benckiser, and the dozens of brands each produces, are being targeted because they did not respond to a request to disclose their ingredients as apparently is required by law. Several companies, including the California-based Sunshine Makers, Inc. (manufacturers of Simple Green products), complied with the request, filing reports with the state for the first time.

(Clorox, whose Greenworks brand has been endorsed by the Sierra Club, has also responded, according to David Willett, a Sierra Club spokesman: “Our partnership with the Greenworks line of products did facilitate more direct conversations because we now have relationships with people at Clorox, but our partnership itself did not play a role. Rather it was Clorox’s assurance … that they have a plan which the company has already started implementing for disclosing ingredients in accordance with the law.”)

The Soap and Detergent Association, an industry group for U.S. cleaning products manufacturers, responded to the lawsuit by saying it “is unfounded, lacks legal standing, and its claims are not supported by state law.” The association pointed to its November 2008 Consumer Product Ingredient Communication Initiative, a voluntary program to disclose more ingredients publicly.

“Responsible manufacturers ensure their products go through comprehensive, extensive risk assessments, and also review scientific developments and monitor product use data that may affect the safety assessment process,” the SDA statement reads, in part. “An incredible amount of research and development goes on before these products ever hit the shelves, not to mention that the products must meet federal and state quality and safety regulations.”

You can read more about the lawsuit on the Earthjustice website and the industry’s response.

Among the ingredients of concern ethylene glycol ethers and other solvents, alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs), surfactants called ethanolamines as well as chlorine and ammonia in combination. The following is a list of the brands, as listed by Earthjustice, made by each company targeted in the lawsuit:

Colgate-Palmolive

• Ajax Fabuloso All-Purpose Cleaner
• Dynamo
• Tom’s of Maine
• Softsoap
• Palmolive (dishwashing soap)
• Ajax Dish Liquid
• Dermassage
• Murphy Oil Soap (wood cleaner, soap spray, soft wipes)
• Suavitel

Reckitt-Benckiser

• Calgon
• Vanish
• Resolve
• Spray ‘n Wash
• Woolite
• Lysol
• Finish (dishwashing detergent)
• Electrasol (dishwashing detergent)

Procter and Gamble

• Joy
• Cascade
• Ivory (laundry detergent and dish detergent only)
• Dawn
• Mr. Clean
• Swiffer
• Bounce
• Cheer
• Downy
• Dreft
• Era
• Gain
• Ivory
• Tide

Church and Dwight

• Brillo steel wool soap pads
• Brillo Scrub ‘n’ Toss
• Scrub Free Soap Scum Remover
• Scrub Free Mildew Stain Remover
• Scrub Free Disinfectant Bathroom Cleaner
• Arm & Hammer Clean Shower
• SNOBOL Toilet Bowl Cleaner
• Parsons’ Ammonia
• Cameo Aluminum & Stainless Steel Cleaner
• Cameo Copper Brass & Porcelain Cleaner
• Kaboom (various bathroom cleaners)
• Orange Glo Hardwood Floor Care
• Orange Glo Wood Furniture Cleaner & Polish
• OxiClean (stain removers for clothing and carpet)

Unlike energy efficiency investments, advances in materials don’t really get any breaks from the market. If a new energy technology costs a bit more, a good chunk of the market is willing to accept it because of the payback. With materials, innovations pretty much have to come in at commodity prices since the number of people willing to buy something because it’s “cool” is a small fraction of those who buy something because it pays back. Of course, “cool and pretty” gives you a much better shot, but when you’re talking about things like gypsum wallboard, “pretty” is not what leaps to mind.

BASF is lucky; in their role as preferred materials supplier to the Masdar project, they actually have a client that will pay for “cool”, and some of the things they’re talking about definitely are: dark roofing materials that don’t heat up; phase-change materials in “lightweight” construction materials such as wallboard that give the performance of thermal mass without the weight and embodied energy and advanced concrete admixtures that reduce the material’s carbon footprint by up to 60 percent. Nice! Can’t wait to see this stuff at Home Depot and Lowe’s.

And innovation is not just an offshore phenomenon: The good folks at Purdue have come up with a way to keep greasy things clean without harsh detergents. The inhabitants of wetlands and estuaries everywhere are cheering.

No doubt Chris Cheatham’s “Curmudgeon Lawyers Anonymous” group, not to mention code enforcement professionals everywhere, can find plenty to grumble about regarding new materials: Few things in buildings are as intertwined with life, health and safety than the stuff buildings are made of. But, as Eisenberg & Persram persuasively argue in their report on regulatory barriers to Living Buildings, dialogue between innovators and regulators can highlight shared goals and expose the arguably larger risks to which we are exposed from maintaining the status quo.

Hand in hand with dialogue comes education and awareness and instruction on green issues are beginning to creep into the college scene as this year’s Princeton Review’s Green College (PRGC) review illustrates. Good news is that there was a 30 percent increase in colleges participating in green activities. Bad news is that less than 2 percent of colleges appear in the Review’s top tier of colleges. The PRGC requirements are fairly comprehensive, but nowhere near radical, so we hope to see a lot more company in the top tiers of the rankings in future years.