GREEN PRODUCTS: WHAT ARE THEY REALLY?
As with most marketing and advertising jargon, the term “green” can be defined in many ways—its
definition tweaked to support a particular message or point of view. In recent years, “green” has even
made its way into the scientific lexicon (e.g., “green chemistry”). Yet, while the general consensus is
that “green” refers, in some way, to environmentally-preferable attributes of a product, service, and/or
technology, there is no single, universal definition of the term.
This white paper examines what constitutes a green product, how the term “green” has been used
and misused, and how green products can affect indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and human
health. Additionally, this paper will explore federal and state government “green chemistry” initiatives,
regulations, guidelines and how they are advancing product technology.
GREEN PRODUCTS, IEQ, AND HUMAN HEALTH: SOME PERSPECTIVE
Prior to 1980, very few products in the U.S. were marketed with an environmentally friendly message.
The sole exception was organic, natural products in the food industry, which flourished.
By the late 1980s and 1990s, the notion of “green” products became somewhat trendier, and the
practice of marketing products as such became more commonplace in niche markets. But it wasn’t
until the start of the 21st century—when concerns over global warming and natural resource depletion
began gaining momentum—that “green” went mainstream and began influencing the practices of
product manufacturers.
Around the same time, researchers focusing on building-related illnesses began to understand the
health benefits of good IEQ. Subsequently, building rating systems, certification programs, and certain
eco-labels started to make IEQ a priority. Third-party product certification programs focusing
specifically on “green” products also began surfacing in the marketplace, largely in response to
concerns about product toxicity and children’s health.
A growing body of research suggests that exposure to chemical emissions—in particular, volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from common indoor materials and finishes—can have numerous
adverse health effects, including an increased risk of asthma, pulmonary infections, and allergies.
One of the most striking findings of this research is that such health complications can occur as a
result of exposure to VOCs at extremely low levels. Disruption of the endocrine system (hormones),
gene activation, and brain development have also been linked to chemical exposure in homes and
schools.
It is critical to note the distinction between chemical emissions from products (which are a major
source of indoor air pollution) and chemical content of products. Many products claim to be ‘low-VOC’
or ‘no-VOC’ because they comply with various state and federal VOC content regulations. (For
example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) VOC content limit is 250 g/L for flat
interior paints and 380 g/L for non-flat interior paints. In California, the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) content limit is 50 g/L for all paints.) Other products may make
similar claims even if they lack data to corroborate them. The problem is that these content-based
VOC regulations were developed to help reduce outdoor VOC emissions that contribute to the
formation of ground ozone and smog—not to reduce indoor VOC emissions and chemical exposure to
building occupants. Since not all VOCs contribute to ozone and smog formation, ‘low-VOC’ or ‘noVOC’
products can still off-gas potentially toxic chemicals into the indoor environment. The only way