By Bruno Waterfield - 21st February 2005
European consumer groups are under fire for claims that many household air fresheners pose a “real risk to health”.
BEUC – the ‘European consumers organisation’ – is in the Dutch courts on Monday over a press release issued in November.
The consumer group claimed that “by using an air freshener in your living room you may be breathing in more toxic substances than you would in the middle of traffic on a main street”.
“These products represent a real risk to health not only of allergy sufferers, asthmatics, pregnant or nursing women and children, but also anyone using them continuously,” states BEUC’s December newsletter.
The claims sparked consumer panic and in the Netherlands sales of air fresheners fell by 30 per cent.
Such was the scope of the panic that the Dutch food and consumer product safety agency (VWA) had to intervene to reassure the public.
Following the scare air freshener manufacturer Sara Lee has taken BEUC and its Dutch member Consumentenbond to court in The Hague.
In the run-up to legal action and under pressure from industry BEUC has finally released the full report used as a basis for the November 22 2004 press release.
But publication of BEUC’s findings has not eased the row with industry highlighting errors, inconsistencies and poor “methodology”.
An industry source told EUpolitx.com that despite problems with BEUC’s tests the biggest issue was the pressure group’s claim air fresheners were unsafe.
“The methodologies used would not stand up in a scientific peer review; yet the most egregious element is the unsubstantiated allegations that these products are not safe,” said a source.
“Air fresheners are safe and sound science demonstrates this.”
Industry sources note basic inconsistencies and errors in the initial press release and the actual report.
The initial BEUC press statement said 76 products had been tested, the report 74.
And an erratum was issued after typographical inaccuracies in BEUC’s December newsletter.
Industry scientists and technicians have also questioned BEUC’s testing techniques and the lack of detail provided over the laboratory environment.
Questions over the age of test site buildings, newly built rooms have high background levels of chemicals, and the rigour of cleaning in between tests remain.
BEUC is refusing to comment on the row until after Sara Lee’s Dutch court case.
“We believe that the company's case is without merit and we will contest the case vigorously,” said a statement.
“Out of respect for the court we will not make any further public statements on this issue before the hearing. We will make our arguments to the court.”
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.