Will detergent sheets save us?
Assessing green claims from green companies
Short answer: No.
Long answer: What Earth Breeze and other laundry detergent sheet companies do really well is invoke the discomfort many of us have with large plastic items; in this case, HDPE #2 liquid detergent containers. Amid our current issues with plastic recycling rates, switching to a more sustainably packed option seems more viable. The issue is that we may be trading one plastic for another.
Earth Breeze could easily be the poster child for “Green Capitalism.” Not only is its branded green and blue plastered all over its website and environmental claims listed out the wazoo, but its customer service image is clearly a priority. Not happy with the product? 100% money-back guarantee. Don’t think the suggested number of sheets is appropriate for your load size? No worries, they are “…with you every step of the way.” They have their own instagram and youtube ads, curated for those in the zero-waste movement. Their “planet-before-profit” style includes its own rebranding of the three R’s: reduce, regenerate, redistribute.
“Redistribute.” That’s something you would hear when people talk about reparations. Their own definition of redistribute is, “…partner[ing] with charities and nonprofits to donate meals and laundry detergent to those in need.” In a sense, charity work can be seen as redistribution, but it also seems like a de-radicalized co-opting of the word for a more pleasant aftertaste.
To be clear, none of this is to denounce Earth Breeze for promoting these causes or to suggest that Earth Breeze is less sustainable than conventional laundry detergents. Perusing their website, I learned about I support the girls, an organization working to bridge the supply gap for bras and hygiene products for the houseless and disenfranchised. Probably because I’m a guy, but I never would have known about this beforehand. As far as most companies are concerned, it seems that Earth Breeze strives to make a difference with its profit.
The point I’m trying to make here is that “green capitalism” is still capitalism, and, as such, there is a profit motive to make a company green and socially responsible that, rather than being an inherent value of the company, is hard to separate from a means to a profitable end. A company is less likely to act in the best interest of all parties when catering to its own bottom line.
Instead of assessing a product from a company’s promotional claims, we should encourage a less biased explanation of the ingredients included, something we already see in the food industry with nutrition labels.
So let’s break down laundry detergent!
Surface tension is a property of most liquids where the molecules at a liquid’s surface have a greater force pulling them down into the other molecules rather than towards the opposing surface.
Depending on how strong the interactions between the molecules of the liquid are, this can actually contract the liquid in on itself to form a droplet. Because water molecules have a high degree of interaction with one another (due to an intermolecular interaction known as hydrogen bonding), water as a liquid has a high degree of surface tension. This means water interacts less with the material being washed, making it harder to lift dirt and grime. To correct for this, humans several millennia ago discovered that by creating materials called surfactants (surface-acting agents), which lower the surface tension of water, they could more easily wash their clothes. These surfactants were what we would call soaps, often a combination of animal fat or plant oils and a “base” in the form of ash.
Recorded history tells of soaps used in Babylon in 2800 B.C. and a Sumerian recipe for making soap from oil and wood ash from 2500 B.C. Soap-making increased in the Islamic golden age, so much so that we get our scientific name for a base from them (alkali from al qaly: “ash”). As soapmaking became more industrialized and the link between hygiene and health became more well-known, bar and liquid soap were created. But a big shift came during World War I. Cut off from the rest of the world, the German people faced oil and fat shortages. They began to experiment with synthetic soaps made from coal tar, and from there came an explosion of synthetic surfactants, many of which we would commonly refer to as “detergents” (even though detergent has a more precise scientific meaning). By the 1950s, laundry “detergent” effectively replaced “soap” for clothes washing in the global north.
What makes soaps and synthetic detergents good surfactants is their molecular structure, often containing a negatively charged hydrophilic (“water-loving”) end and a fatty, long-chain carbon polymer end that is hydrophobic (“water-fearing”).
Whereas water by itself would be repelled by dirt and grime, surfactants, with their dual structure, can both dissolve in water and act like a claw, picking up dirt and grime and dissolving them within the water in little spherical balls called “micelles.”
In today’s society, when we say laundry “detergent,” however, we are referring to a product that contains more than just scientific detergents, but also enzymes, bleaching agents, and, in the case of laundry detergent sheets or pods, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA, or sometimes PVOH). PVA provides the film-like property to the sheet or pod, enabling its resistance from breakdown. However, it’s also water soluble, so it will break down in water and release the detergent at the right time.
Despite its listing as completely water soluble and biodegradable, as well as relatively safe according to the EPA, allegations against it claim that it is still a plastic that we are effectively throwing straight into our waterways any time we use one of the sheets or pods. Its biodegradation depends on the presence of certain bacteria able to break it down; thus, there is a potential for its buildup in improperly treated wastewater. The most significant charges brought against it come from a study paid for by the “green” company Blueland, which makes powdered detergents that don’t contain PVA. And so we’re left with the all-too-familiar situation where some experts endorse its use, citing years of studies on its safety, while others decry it, saying that its potential buildup could produce negative environmental and health benefits.
On my own part, I guess PVA is something to be avoided if possible. But the more general problem here is that, despite all my own research into it, I’m still uncertain what is best for the environment. How am I, or any other person, supposed to know if PVA is something we should or should not be using? Those with the best answer to this question are likely the ones who work directly with the compound in their products. But because of their ultimate interest in their profit, they probably aren’t as honest about their product as they could (and should) be. The idea that “savvy” consumers in a market economy can tell which companies are stretching the truth just doesn’t hold up.
