“It’s my college education, Masters in biology, bachelors in chemistry that makes me respond, and it’s everday consumers without proper education in biology and chemistry that concerns me the most.” – Sorry but I don’t think we “everyday consumers” need any education in biology to want to avoid any substance that is toxic or potentially toxic…there are plenty of alternatives out there that are not.

I contacted Simple Green as well after that article and they still claim that while they once did animal testing they don’t anymore. But to help point something else out – the field of toxicity testing has changed. Governments around the world have found non-animal testing methods ..even based on calculating toxicity of products based on previously established toxicity of the ingredients. So just because one has the toxicity data on their Safety Sheets doesn’t necessarily just mean they still test on animals. Try asking the company yourself.

Also, everything in dangerous in high enough quantities. Everyone praises vinegar, but vinegar (additional flavor enhancing impurities aside) is just 5% acetic acid in water. have you looked at the hazards of pure acetic acid? Why is a dilute form of one ok, but the not the other for consumers?

I was also outraged by the fact that Simple Green had EGBE in it, but I choose to contact the company and they linked me to a variety of California EPA documents as well as EPA documents – all available on their respective websites, which better explain the hazards of EGBE. Let me just say, it’s not as cut and dry as these articles make it.

The media always hypes up the latest “problem” they encounter. Everyone knows this. Try educating yourself a little instead of just jumping on the band wagon.

After learning more about the true test results of that chemical, I know can make an educated decision whether I should use Simple Green or not. I for one don’t think they are a bad company, but there are greener options out there.

A key ingredient of Simple Green is butyl cellosolve, a substance considered toxic by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. In lab tests, the liquid has destroyed red blood cells and caused minor birth defects in animals. When absorbed through the skin or inhaled, it has caused irritation around the eyes and noses of humans and headaches.

Concentrations of the solvent in household cleaners are not thought to pose an immediate danger to people. But LeBlanc believes products should not be labeled as “green” if they contain ingredients that are considered to be toxic by the federal government.

Manufacturers of Simple Green, the California-based Sunshine Makers, stand by their claims, which they say are backed by more than $3 million in testing. On the Simple Green Web site, the Material Safety and Data Sheet reports that analysis by federal environmental standards “revealed no toxic organic or inorganic constituents.”

“It gets so confusing for customers,” LeBlanc says. “We’re faced with an industry that does a poor job of training and a good job of marketing. Cleaners in stores are not as safe as cleaners that I have in my lab, and that is sad.”