HBW Insight is part of the Business Intelligence Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

P&G reformulating to reduce 1,4-dioxane?

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

According to the Campaign For Safe Cosmetics, Procter & Gamble will reformulate 18 of its Herbal Essences shampoos to reduce levels of trace contaminant 1,4-dioxane as part of an agreement with David Steinman, founder of the Green Patriot Working Group, who filed a notice of intent to sue under California's Proposition 65. Steinman's testing found that Herbal Essences shampoos had 1,4-dioxane levels of 24 parts per million (ppm), more than double the 10 ppm "actionable level" suggested by prior legal action in the state under the "landmark toxics law," group says. Campaign rep Lisa Archer says 1,4-dioxane - a probable human carcinogen, according to the Environmental Protection Agency - is "just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problematic chemicals in personal-care products." While the Campaign applauds P&G's decision to address 1,4-dioxane, the organization maintains that "even more is needed to assure customers that P&G products are free of chemicals." P&G could not be reached for comment; however, the firm has noted in the past that settling suits filed under Prop 65 can be more economical than fighting them, even when a firm is not actually in violation (1"The Rose Sheet" Sept. 15, 2008
Advertisement

Related Content

Settling Prop 65 Suits Is Easier, Cheaper Than Fighting, Firms Say
Settling Prop 65 Suits Is Easier, Cheaper Than Fighting, Firms Say
Advertisement
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS016810

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel