The cleaning industry clickbait

I'M SURE everyone has heard of companies marketing that they have created chemical-free cleaning products or even that their cleaning process is chemical-free, which seems like a wonderful idea. The less wonderful part is that there is zero logic behind this claim, and I am yet to see many other people point this out and so here I am putting my head above the parapet, ready for it to be shot at!

The term chemical is often thrown into conversations, but it is just as often used incorrectly. The definition of a chemical is any substance made up of matter, which means that everything around us is made of chemicals. This includes naturally occurring substances such as water, salt and oxygen, which aren’t inherently harmful. So why has the term become associated with potentially toxic substances and led to this increased demand for “chemical-free” alternatives?

The “chemical-free” alternatives rely on naturally occurring ingredients, including things such as vinegar, lemon juice or baking soda, which are perceived to be the safer and more environmentally friendly versions of their synthetic counterparts. The advantages of these cleaning products are that they have a smaller environmental footprint, as a lot are biodegradable and reduce exposure to potentially toxic substances. These products definitelyhave their benefits, but are they labelled incorrectly? This increases the chance of consumers or end users being misinformed about the products they are using. The unique selling point of these products is surely the lack of harsh synthetic chemicals, and so do we need to marketthese correctly, as containing natural chemicals, not chemical-free.

The standard “chemical-based” cleaning products are relied on for good reason, for their effectiveness in ensuring surfaces are hygienically clean. It should be noted that there are obvious possible health risks from frequent exposure to strong chemicals. This is the reason why there is a marketplace for natural or less harsh chemical products, which isn’t what is up for debate.

The important thing is that the best products for a task are based on the specific needs and circumstances, so I can’t tell you for definite in this article whether you should stick to the standard chemicals or if you should move to these supposed chemical-free products. I can tell you for certain that different jobs have different needs. High-risk areas such as kitchens and bathrooms, or clinical settings, may still require the use of stronger chemical products to ensure proper hygiene standards are maintained. However, for everyday maintenance, the use of “chemical-free” methods can be both effective and have the added benefits of being safer for everyone and the planet. 

In drawing this article to a close, I want to make my point clear. The use of “chemical-free” products isn’t inherently bad or wrong; it is the term itself that is the problem. 

Companies marketing products this way to make them automatically seem like the better and safer option are technically spreading incorrect information with false claims, as it is impossible for products to be free from chemicals. Products like this should be labelled differently as “harsh chemicals free” to ensure that consumers are aware of what they are purchasing. The moral of the story is that the cleaning industry needs to work on the language we all use to avoid ‘clickbaiting’ consumers and end users, therefore, allowing them to make informed choices. 

And perhaps we will see some changes with the new ECGT Directive, which will come into force shortly, ensuring that environmental and sustainability claims are kept honest, truthfuland most importantly accurate! 

Neil Spencer-Cook is group managing director at BICSc

For more information visit www.bics.org.uk