The Down and Dirty on Cleaning in Virus Season
Industry Report Reveals Burnout Prevalence Among Cleaning Professionals
How Surfactant Use is Expanding in Commercial Cleaning
Clean Buildings Conference
Green Seal, Washington, D.C., has released the final version of GS-37 that aims to protect sensitive and vulnerable populations such as children.
The primary goal of the revision is to guarantee that the program continues to represent a standard of environmental leadership geared to incorporate criteria that protects human health especially that of children and custodial workers, says Arthur Weissman, Ph.D., president and CEO of Green Seal.
The revised standard criteria emphasizes consideration of vulnerable populations in institutional settings such as schools, day-care facilities, nursing homes and other facilities.
The revision was met with discontent from several stakeholders in the process. Dissenting members include: the New York State Chemical Alliance, the Alkylphenol Ethoxylates Research Council, the American Chemistry Council, the Carpet & Rug Institute, the Fragrance Materials Association, Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., SI Group, Inc., and The Soap and Detergent Association.
In a letter sent to Dr. Weissman, Stephen M. Rosario, executive director of the New York State Chemical Alliance, claimed the voting process was neither open nor transparent — two of the guiding principles of the revision.
The letter accuses Green Seal of not following the International Organization for Standardization’s (ISO) process to reach a consensus as it was indicated on Green Seal’s Web site.
Aside from opposing the voting process, the letter highlights a philosophical point of contention with Green Seal, since the organization’s belief is using a hazard-based approach.
“Green Seal’s strict adherence to a hazard-based approach, and rejection of the basic principles of science-based risk assessment accepted around the world, were at the very core of our philosophical differences and would impede any chance of a consensus-based standard,” writes Rosario.
The companies will not support the revised standard and do not consent to any statement made by Green Seal that the organizations support the final revised standard.
Green Seal has responded to these charges, claiming the ballot process was open and transparent. The organization adhered to the ISO standard and other stakeholders fully supported the hazard-based approach and that the ballot was split. It was up to Green Seal to create a standard that would ensure the protection of vulnerable populations and the environment.