|
Thread Number: 78202
/ Tag: Detergents and Additives
Tide Simply Fresh & Clean opinions? |
[Down to Last] |  |
| Post# 1022229 1/23/2019 at 21:20 (1,918 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room) | ||
Tide Simply Clean & Fresh is on sale at the store where I usually get detergent. I'm wondering how good it currently is. One assumes, of course, it's not as good as regular Tide...but is it at least as good as, say, All?
Also I'm wondering how strong the perfume is after laundry has been washed and dried in dryer. As always, thanks! | ||
|
| Post# 1022236 , Reply# 1 1/23/2019 at 21:59 (1,918 days old) by IowaBear (Cedar Rapids, IA) | ||
 | ||
Post# 1022353 , Reply# 3 1/24/2019 at 22:41 (1,917 days old) by Launderess  (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
Tide Simply Clean & Fresh  | ||
| Post# 1022359 , Reply# 4 1/24/2019 at 23:03 (1,917 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room) | ||
|
>The "sensitive/pure" version is a rarity from P&G in that it is a laundry detergent not loaded with OBAs.
Unfortunately, there do appear to be OBAs, although I have no idea how "loaded" the stuff is. smartlabel.pg.com/00037000981558.... Tide purclean is apparently OBA free--at least for the moment... Although, unfortunately, I know finding it has been a problem for you, Launderess. | ||
|
Post# 1022378 , Reply# 5 1/25/2019 at 03:08 (1,917 days old) by mrboilwash (Munich,Germany) |
||
They don`t even bother to label the chemical precisely. It`s just "Flourescent Brightener" on the ingredients list. Shame on P&G for still leaving US consumers in the dark !
What if someone is concerned about suspected endocrine disrupters ? Guess they know exactly why they`re still keeping transparency at a minimum. | ||
|
Post# 1022379 , Reply# 6 1/25/2019 at 03:35 (1,917 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
@LordKenmore:
Must have had things muddled; and it was the PurClean sensitive was thinking didn't have OBAs. Tide Simply "Sensitive" ingredients: Ingredients: Water,Sodium Alcohol Ethoxylate Sulfate,Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate Mea Salt,Borax,Propylene Glycol,Diethylene Glycol,Citric Acid Mea Salt,Alcohol,Sodium Formate*,Sodium Alcohol Sulfate,Citric Acid Sodium Salt,Dtpa, Sodium Salt,Calcium Diformate,Sodium Hydroxide,Flourescent Brightener,Dimethicone & Simethicone*,Siloxanes & Silicones @MrBoilWash Makers of consumer laundry detergent (along with some other laundry products) long got at US government not to force mandatory disclosure of ingredients on packet labels. Something about trade and or proprietary information or some such. That being what it is P&G a few years ago now began listing such information on their website for most of their laundry, dishwashing and other products. | ||
|
Post# 1022381 , Reply# 7 1/25/2019 at 03:57 (1,917 days old) by mrboilwash (Munich,Germany) |
||
|
Providing a list of chemicals for the sake of alleged transparency and then using just umbrella terms for controversial chemicals at the same time is not transparent at all.
I know there is no obligation for manufacturers in the US to provide such lists, but the way some do it nonetheless is just a huge scam. | ||
| Post# 1022384 , Reply# 8 1/25/2019 at 05:23 (1,916 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room) | ||
|
I have to agree it would be nice if P&G specified an actual chemical, instead of "fluorescent brightener." That said...I will say that I'm glad they provide some information, and they even indicate the purposes of each ingredient.
Meanwhile, I have often had zero luck getting information from the site that supposedly has info about All. Half the time, a search turns up nothing. Persil (US) is interesting. They currently spell out the ingredients on the product page itself (rather than forcing one to a different web site). But it is just chemical names--no indication of what any specific chemical might do. | ||
| Post# 1022385 , Reply# 9 1/25/2019 at 05:28 (1,916 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room) | ||
|
>Must have had things muddled; and it was the PurClean sensitive was thinking didn't have OBAs.
It's very hard to keep Tide products straight. There are so many of them now, and, of course, things change regularly. I wonder if even the people who work in the Tide division at P&G don't have moments when they get things mixed up! I only remember that Tide Simply Clean and Fresh has OBAs because I was looking at ingredients as I pondered getting Tide Simply Clean and Fresh. I specifically looked at the unscented version, since unscented is my preference most of the time. | ||
|
Post# 1022387 , Reply# 10 1/25/2019 at 05:33 (1,916 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
Information about All detergents often is best sourced | ||
|
Post# 1022389 , Reply# 11 1/25/2019 at 05:37 (1,916 days old) by mrboilwash (Munich,Germany) |
||
|
| ||
| Post# 1022391 , Reply# 12 1/25/2019 at 05:42 (1,916 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room) | ||
|
| ||
|
Post# 1022393 , Reply# 13 1/25/2019 at 05:52 (1,916 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
STILBENE-TRIAZINE DERIVATIVE
Is an optical fluorescent agent. AKA OBA.
It is odd that even the famous All Free and Clear is ranked only a "D" by EWG. Also is rather ironic the Method detergents don't score very much higher overall either. www.ewg.org/guides/brand/... What one has noticed is that powder laundry detergents tend to score far better than liquids. Take Seventh Generation for instance: www.ewg.org/guides/cleane... This might be simply due to formulaton differences between liquds/gels and powders. The former by nature must contain a good amount of preservatives to have any sort of decent shelf life. Powdered detergents IIRC are far more shelf stable. Persil Pro-Clean got an "F" rating from EWG as well. www.ewg.org/guides/cleane... In fact the entire line rated rather poorly. Only Persil detergent scoring a "C" was the power perls. www.ewg.org/guides/brand/... | ||
|
Post# 1022394 , Reply# 14 1/25/2019 at 05:55 (1,916 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage) |
||
|
@MrBoilWash
One must remember for years American consumers didn't have a clue to what was in laundry products. Have packets from the 1950's and 1960's which speak to nothing in terms of contents.
Later on you started to get general chemicals "anionic surfactants, fabric whitening agents, water softeners, perfume, etc...), but nothing close to the nitty-gritty. | ||
|
Post# 1022398 , Reply# 15 1/25/2019 at 06:23 (1,916 days old) by mrboilwash (Munich,Germany) |
||
|
Same here, before the year 2004 European consumers didn`t have a clue to what was in their laundry products too. Except for vague general chemicals (umbrella terms) listed on packages.
It is still surprising to me that in the US it was made an obligation for cosmetic manufacturers (somewhere in the 70`s I think) to list chemicals which was years before it was even considered to do so in Europe. But when it comes to cleaning products like laundry detergent industry is still not forced to provide transparency. I wonder how come that US lobbying worked out so well for detergents but not for cosmetics. At least from industy`s point of view... After all it`s frequently the same companies behind the two business segments. | ||
| Post# 1022495 , Reply# 17 1/26/2019 at 02:36 (1,916 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room) | ||
|
>Sometime ago there was a thread wth a link to OB in detergents and what was safe to use on diapers. I used that guide, found it very fascinating.
I can't remember that specific guide, but I can recall links to OBA free detergent guides. The one problem I've discovered, however, is that the information may not be current. I recall one guide that listed several OBA free detergents that, after the guide was produced, were changed to include OBA. I've frankly come to a point where I assume that a detergent I'm considering that I bought, say, a year ago might not be the same formula. Often, of course, this may not matter. But it may matter if one is specifically looking to either avoid, or get a specific ingredient. >Was surprised All Free & Clear did rank higher since many, many doctors recommend it....as it was recommended to me. I assume you refer to the EWG letter grade rating? If so, I'm frankly not surprised. I'm guessing that environmental concerns are a huge factor for them. I certainly have noted from what I've seen that conventional detergents generally don't score well, and the ones that get a good grade are "green" detergents, like Seventh Generation. Meanwhile, a doctor is more focused on the direct impact on a patient. | ||
| Post# 1022496 , Reply# 18 1/26/2019 at 02:52 (1,916 days old) by LordKenmore (The Laundry Room) | ||
|
>I wonder how come that US lobbying worked out so well for detergents but not for cosmetics. At least from industy`s point of view... After all it`s frequently the same companies behind the two business segments.
Interesting question... I'm wondering, though, if there wasn't at some point more pressure for disclosure with cosmetics from people or groups representing the interests of people. But that is only speculation. One factor, too: cosmetics might seem more important since they directly used on skin. A lot of people probably don't think twice about laundry products--they may even have an attitude of: "Well, who cares? The washer rinses the detergent out, doesn't it?!?" It seems like most people who really worry about detergents have skin issues, or have a long term concern about laundry product impact on health or the environment. Indeed, it's interesting that as I think of it...but I can't recall much discussion in the "real world" years back about laundry detergents past "does stuff properly clean clothes?" I think it's been 10, 15 years since I first read anything talking about some people needing unscented detergent for whatever reason in a mainstream news publication. And I had a phase of using "green detergents" starting about 10-15 years ago, and the arguments I recall (although I can't swear my recollection is necessarily 100% right!) from back then were all environmental impact. | ||
|
Post# 1022509 , Reply# 19 1/26/2019 at 08:01 (1,915 days old) by jamiel (Detroit, Michigan and Palm Springs, CA) |
||
yeah, there was a lot more pressure on cosmetics to disclose from some of the scandals in the 20s/30s with things like lead in face powders, lye in hair straigheners, etc. Generally cosmetics manufacturers weren't as powerful/big as the big soap companies, either, so couldn't lobby as effectively. Finally, but for phosphates/eutrophication, there were fewer scandals (and more science) with the soap companies...let's face it TSPP does what it does verrry verrry well; it was more overabundant and excessively used than dangerous.
| ||
| Forum Index: |
| Other Forums: |
|
|
|
|
|
Comes to the Rescue!
