Are Green Cleaning Products Really Safer? The Greenwashing Problem

Does “green” mean anything on a Canadian label?

On its own, no. There is no Canadian regulation defining “natural”, “non-toxic”, “green” or “eco-friendly” for household cleaning products. Any manufacturer can print any of those words on any bottle without meeting a standard first, because what Canada regulates is whether a claim is false or misleading, and that is enforced after the fact.

The enforcement did get sharper recently. The Competition Bureau published its final guidance, Environmental claims and the Competition Act, on 5 June 2025, setting out six principles:

1. Claims must be truthful in literal meaning and in general impression.
2. Environmental benefit and performance claims must be based on adequate and proper testing before the claim is made.
3. Comparisons must specify what is being compared to what.
4. A small environmental benefit must not be marketed as a significant one.
5. Be specific rather than vague. The Bureau’s own phrasing: “when in doubt, spell it out.”
6. Forward-looking claims need concrete plans and interim targets.

The guidance singles out exactly the words this industry loves, noting that “a claim that a particular product is eco-friendly may convey the impression that the product is beneficial for the environment throughout its entire life cycle.” The greenwashing amendments became law on 20 June 2024, and a private right of action came into force on 20 June 2025, letting individuals and organisations bring deceptive-advertising cases directly to the Competition Tribunal with leave.

That last point applies to us as much as to anyone. A cleaning company that markets itself on being green is now exposed to a private action if it cannot substantiate what it says. We think that is a good thing, and it is a large part of why this site publishes a product list instead of an adjective.

The second half of the problem is disclosure. Under the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001, only hazardous ingredients present at 1% or more have to appear on a Canadian label, and only inside the first-aid statement. So a bottle can be nearly entirely undisclosed, marketed as natural, and be perfectly legal.

Do green products actually emit less?

Less, yes. Nothing, no. And the evidence is more contested than either side of this argument usually admits.

The most relevant study is a 2023 paper in Chemosphere by Temkin and colleagues, which chamber-tested 30 cleaning products (14 conventional, 9 green with fragrance, 7 green and fragrance-free) and detected 530 unique VOCs, of which 193 were classified as hazardous. Conventional products generally showed greater total concentration, emission factors and numbers of VOCs than green products, and especially compared with fragrance-free ones.

Three things should be said about that study by anyone citing it honestly:

• It was conducted by EWG researchers. EWG is an advocacy organisation with a position on this question, and the study supports that position. We are citing it because it is the best chamber data available, not because its authorship is neutral.
• The American Cleaning Institute, the industry body, disputes it.
• Earlier headspace work by Anne Steinemann found essentially no difference between green and conventional products in the number of VOCs and hazardous VOCs emitted. The 2023 study used a better method for measuring how much rather than merely what is present, but the direction of the evidence is genuinely contested and should be presented that way.

The practical conclusion is not flattering to the marketing category: “green” on the front of the bottle is a weak predictor, and fragrance-free is a stronger one than green. It is also worth noting that many products marketed as natural are heavily scented with essential oils, which are terpene-rich, and terpenes react with indoor ozone to form formaldehyde and ultrafine particles. Natural fragrance is not a health claim. We go into that chemistry in what VOCs in cleaning products actually are.

What does each certification actually certify?

This is where the real difference between a meaningful claim and a decorative one lives.

How do you spot a claim that means nothing?

Five checks, in order, each of which traces back to a published source rather than to a hunch.

1. Is a third party named? A leaf, a green bottle, an earth icon and the words “eco” or “natural” are self-declared. ECOLOGO, Green Seal, Safer Choice and DfE are third-party verified against published, public standards you can go and read.
2. Is the claim specific? “Biodegradable surfactants per OECD 301B” is a claim. “Earth friendly” is not. This is literally the Competition Bureau’s spell-it-out principle.
3. Does it name its ingredients? Canadian law does not require a full list, so publishing one voluntarily is a real signal rather than a courtesy.
4. Does the certification match the claim? A Safer Choice logo on a bottle promising to kill germs is a mismatch, because Safer Choice does not certify disinfectants.
5. Does any disinfectant claim carry a DIN? In Canada, no eight-digit Drug Identification Number means no legal disinfectant claim, whatever the front label says.

A sixth test is worth adding for services rather than products: ask the company to email you the safety data sheet for every product they will use in your home. Almost nobody marketing themselves as eco-friendly can produce that on request, and it takes one email to find out.

Where does this criticism land on us?

Squarely, and it would be dishonest to write this article and exempt ourselves. Here is the list.

• We market on being a green cleaning company, which is exactly the vague category this article says is a weak signal. The claim that should carry the weight is the product list, not the adjective.
• We cite an EWG-authored study because it supports our position, and we have said so above rather than burying it in a footnote.
• We do not say “chemical-free” or “toxin-free”, ever. Water is a chemical, those phrases are unsubstantiable, and they are precisely what the Competition Bureau’s guidance targets now that a private right of action exists.
• Natural does not mean safe. Vinegar permanently etches marble and limestone. Undiluted essential oils burn skin, and as little as 5 mL of eucalyptus oil can severely poison a small child. Cats cannot clear the phenols and terpenes in many oils sold as natural cleaners.
• Microfibre sheds microplastics in the wash. Cotton and wool shed at broadly comparable rates by mass, so this is not a reason to abandon microfibre, but it is not zero impact and we will not claim otherwise.
• Plant-based cleaners do not disinfect. Where disinfection is genuinely warranted, we use a product carrying a DIN, which is covered in are natural cleaning products actually effective.

A company that cannot list the places its own category loses is doing marketing, not disclosure. The rest of what we use and refuse is set out on our green cleaning method page, and what it costs is on our pricing page, with no eco surcharge attached to the word.