OAKLAND, CA - Reacting in part to a study released by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) in March of this year, but also based on their own testing, the Attorney General of California has filed a major lawsuit against body care household-cleaning product companies whose products recently tested highest for the carcinogenic contaminant 1,4-Dioxane.
Under California's "Proposition 65" consumer products that contain toxic levels of 1,4 Dioxane must have warning labels stating they may cause cancer. 1,4-Dioxane is typically produced as a byproduct when ingredients are ethoxylated with the petrochemical ethylene oxide, a process which has become standard practice for many cleansing and moisturizing products.
The suit, California v. Avalon Natural Products (manufacturer of the Alba brand), also names Whole Foods Market California (manufacturer of the Whole Foods 365 brand), Beaumont Products (manufacturer of the Citrus Magic brand), and Nutribiotic (read full Attorney General suit here). It is unclear exactly which products manufactured by the aforementioned companies triggered the lawsuit, but all named companies have sold products that tested close to or in excess of 20 parts per million for 1,4-Dioxane in the OCA study released at the Natural Products Expo in Anaheim, CA in March (read study results here).
Last week OCA sent a letter to the four companies named in the California lawsuit to see if they are planning changes to their labeling or product formulations. Only one company responded. In a letter to the OCA, Beaumont Products wrote, "Upon being notified that there was a problem with our product, we verified that the problem existed, then took immediate action." Beaumont has reformulated their products to remove the problematic ingredient, highlighting their dedication to providing safe products, in contrast to the lack of action taken by the other three companies. http://www.organicconsumers.org/bodycare/beaumont.doc)
The California Attorney General (AG) alleges these companies should have put warning labels on products containing high levels of 1,4-Dioxane, stating that they may cause cancer. The lawsuit states, "Plaintiff alleges that each defendant has known since at least May 29, 2004 that the body washes and gels and liquid dish soaps contain, 1,4-dioxane and that persons using these products are exposed to 1,4-dioxane." Per Proposition 65, fines for mislabeled products are as high as $2,500 per day for each violation. FAQs about 1,4-Dioxane can be found here.
"These companies need to stop treating the inclusion of cancer causing chemicals in their products as 'business as usual' and reformulate before consumer confidence in the natural products and organics industry is permanently damaged," says consumer activist David Steinman who conducted the OCA study and originally exposed the presence of 1,4-Dioxane in baby bubble bath products in his book Safe Trip to Eden and in a February, 2007 press conference with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. (The press release can be found here .)
The AG's complaint states that California wants, "…preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions, or other orders prohibiting the defendant(s) from exposing persons within the State of California to 1,4-dioxane without providing clear and reasonable warnings…"
"The OCA's 1,4-dioxane study elevated the issue of fake 'natural' and 'organic' brands that utilize petrochemicals in their formulas in March, and now we are seeing labeling enforcement on a scale never seen before," says OCA National Director Ronnie Cummins. "We used an independent laboratory and found that numerous 'natural' and 'organic' brands tested positive for 1,4-Dioxane, a cancer causing contaminant resulting from the petrochemical ethylene oxide being attached to one or more ingredients."
For immediate release: Interviews with David Steinman or Ronnie Cummins can be arranged by contacting Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
For several years I drove 22 miles ONE WAY to get to the nearest Wild Oats store, scheduling my trip to include other stops in that area so I could get the most bang for my gasoline buck. When I heard they were changing to Whole Foods, I got a sinking feeling in my stomach, mostly because past experiences have shown me that changes such as this are seldom good. I tried to keep an open mind and continued to shop there for a couple of months after the conversion to Whole Foods, but it didn't take long before I sensed my sinking feeling was justified.
The store is not as clean as it once was, many items I could only get at Wild Oats are no longer stocked, I don't recognize any of the employees anymore, and the personnel who do work there are not as knowledgeable as their predecessors. One of the things I liked best about Wild Oats was their Wooden Nickel program wherein if I brought my own shopping bags I got to put wooden nickels into a box for a charity of my choice. I don't know where this donation goes now and when I've asked, the employees don't seem to know either.
Until I read the article in the Indianapolis Sustainable Food Alliance eNewsletter, I was not aware of the political goings-on about this merger; I only knew I didn't like the change as a consumer. My monthly trip to Wild Oats/Whole Foods usually amounted to about $200 and while I'm aware this amount will not make a dent in their bottom line, I am now boycotting all future trips to that store. I also plan to write the company to inform them of my opinion. Thankfully, other grocery stores in the area are finally starting to catch on to organic foods so I will be able to eat, and if they don't carry items I used to get at WO/WF, then I will do without.
In my opinion, Mr. Steinman said it best: "These companies need to stop treating the inclusion of cancer causing chemicals in their products as 'business as usual' and reformulate before consumer confidence in the natural products and organics industry is permanently damaged." And KUDOS to Beaumont Products for taking responsibility...and Action! I 'bout fell off my chair since we live in a time when "I can't recall" and "We didn't know" seem to be typical PR fodder.
I'm not sure product makers understand the mentality of an organic shopper - I believe we are different than what the product and marketing companies are used to. For example, the local Meijer stores are really beefing up the organic product selection, but they don't seem to understand that this consumer (and I believe most organic consumers) don't want organic items mingled on the shelves with other choices. Personally, I'd much rather see a section of the store devoted exclusively to organic products so I can walk in, get my shopping done, and get out. I believe they think that by mixing them in with other items we might be inclined to choose the name brand that's on sale rather than the organic, or if I'm looking for organic canned peaches in the canned food aisle and don't find them, that I'll choose another brand instead. I don't think they realize that for the most part, if no organic item is available, most of us would do without or try another store...or maybe that's just me.
by
Kerry D (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:00:56 AM
REACTION TO WHOLE FOODS BEING SUED BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Whole Foods has a massive quality control issue that they must address, and not just mask under their 365 label. Their label must mean something in terms of quality, purity, and value. Right now, this 365/lawsuit by the State of California under its cancer prevention statutes withing Proposition 65 means that Whole Foods has an enormous quality control issue. What baffles me is that these tests were done about 4 years ago, so why didn't Whole Foods quit adding the carcinogens and reformulate their products accordingly? This can only have resulted from their corporate hubris.
As a consumer protectionist, it is really clear to me that Whole Foods customers and former customers who are concerned about avoiding cancer from their products, should take ALL of them back to Whole Foods and ask politely for a full refund. before they stop shopping there altogether.
The fines inherent in Proposition 65 are each at an amount of $2500 per day, so maybe the rosy duplicitous picture put forth by Whole Foods is getting a little cloud?
I personally plan to stop shopping there, henceforth, and probably permanently! If I owned Whole Foods stock, I would be dumping it....This whole deal is starting to remind me of the mess which Erin Brockovich unraveled, the asbestos suits, and the civil rights cases in the 60's. Jerry Brown is certainly on the right track, especially if other Attorneys General were to join in this effort. New Mexico's AG has a Ph. D. in Chemistry; perhaps he will examine Jerry Brown's efforts in that light.
Richard Blumenthal of Connecticutt is the kind of AG who might want to move in that direction....Don't forget also that Governor Christine O. Gregoire of Washington state was one of the AG's who participated back in the 90's in the Tobacco suits, which resulted in billions of dollars of judgments.
JUST HOW DIFFERENT IS WHOLE FOODS IN THIS INSTANCE FROM THE TOBACCO CORPORATIONS?
Truly,
Eliot Gould
by
Eliot Gould (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 200 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 17, 2008 at 6:20:34 PM
Well said. As an investor, I would be curious about and interested in Mike Gilliland's Sunflower/Farmer's Markets, a new chain welcomed in the West; Gilliland was the Boulder, Colorado Founder of Wild Oats, and I can't recall any scandal or ethical broach that EVER came out during his 20 year tenure there.
by
Eliot Gould (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 200 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 17, 2008 at 6:43:48 PM
First, K. Davis: welcome to Op Ed News! I see this was your first comment ever. You make valid points, and I think that Indiana's stores' shifts in policy are much like those in other states.
I am glad that Beaumont showed the wisdom to switch formats as soon as all of this came out, but from what I understand, these tests proving carcinogenicity were done 3-4 years ago, so have WF and the others kept the same compound/formatting in making their soaps, entirely knowing about the effects of those chemicals for the past four years?
Gould makes some good points too.
Stephen Fox
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 17, 2008 at 7:10:31 PM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Contact Editor
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
