"New Formula" Ariel now phosphate-free

[sudsmaster]

Bad news for Ariel fans... I visited a local mexican market today, and as usual scanned the detergent shelves to see if Ariel Bajaespuma has finally made it this far north. No luck there, but there was even worse news.

On the shelves were many bags of many sizes of Ariel Oxyazul Max. OK, nothing new there. Or was there? On the packgage it proclaimed, "Formula Neuva". On the ingredients list... no mention whatsoever of phosphates... There was only a mention of "ablandador agua", which translates to "water softener". This, in turn, could mean anything, but I figure it probably means that it's simply sodium carbonate and/or zeolites. I didn't purchase any of the "Formula nueva", so I can't test it for precipitation with some hard well water, but I suspect the worst: P&G has caved into environmental pressure and made all versions of Ariel for sale in the USA, even those made in Mexico, phosphate free. A slight hope is that since the packaging doesn't seem to say "phosphate free", the stuff might still contain some. But I really doubt it at this point.

Oh well. I still have a tub of old Ariel to use for special occasions (I emptied a big bag into a tub for better storage).

 

[launderess]

Well It Sort of Makes Sense

After the pitiful showing of the "American" version of Areil, P&G must have figured why knock themselves out developing, marketing and producing an entire separate detergent under the same name, when the original will do with one slight modification. Yet another example of how Hispanic shoppers are shaping the Amercian landscape.

L.

 

[sudsmaster]

Yeah, except the "Mexican" version now appears to be little more than a repackaged version of the failed phosphate free "American" versin.

If it is indeed just Tide in a bag, then in time I think people will start to notice their work clothes are not getting as clean as they used to, and Ariel will lose market share to the few remaining brands that still are phosphated (like Foca and Roma). And since hispanics seem to do a lot of the physical work the rest of us shun, their laundry is liable to need phosphates more than ours.

 

[launderess]

P&G had to do something as more and more states are cracking down on phosphates detergents, even for commercial use. Since they have been not totally sucessful in stopping distribution of the Mexcian Ariel into the United States, and rather than risk lawsuits from those claiming P&G is responsible; why not nip the thing in the bud and change the Mexican formula and sell it on both sides of the border.

 

[Unimatic1140]

I think I posted the ingredients of one of the bags of Ariel that I have and I could not find any phosphates in it. Foca and Roma is the one with phosphates in it I believe.

 

[sudsmaster]

Robert,

Older versions of Ariel listed phosphates as an ingredient. Too bad the "new formula" has omitted them. Oh well. I'll be looking at some more Mexican grocery shelves to see if there's any old stock still around. But I suspect that all the stuff for sale nowadays is the new, phosphate free formula nueva.

 

[sudsmaster]

I visited another local Mexican grocery this afternoon after work. While they only have the new non-phosphate Ariel, they also have some other brands I haven't seen them carry before.

Namely, powdered Lirio, which has STPP.

Also, Viva, made in Mexico by Henckel, which also has STPP. Both are top loader types of detergents, and probably high sudsing, but I bought a little of each to try out on the work clothes in the Neptune.

Also saw little bags of Tide - made in China, with mostly Chinese writing on them. Some bags had english language stickers that said "phosphate free", as well as pictoral instructions for proper usage.

Both Viva and Lirio have enzymes, and Lirio also has what it calls "bentonine (softening)", which I gather is the same as bentonite. Bentonite is used in the textile industry as a fabric softener - it actually coats the fabric fibers. It's a type of aluminum silicate clay, and has many other uses, including medicinal.

 

[peterh770]

Lirio is a fantastic detergent, but for some reason it is target number one on the environmentalist list of detergents to ban, probably because the smaller company that makes it is an easier target than P&G and Henkel. If you can get some, I HIGHLY recomment this detergent, even more so than Viva.

OTOH, maybe P&G is making Mexican Ariel more of a Tide knock-off to consolidate manufacturing?

 

[sudsmaster]

Well, I just ran a load of work clothes in the Neptune with 1/2 cup of Viva. It had a moderate amount of suds and a powerful fragrance. Kind of piney-lemony. Still lingers even after a fourth rinse and max extract spin.

The Lirio has a more flowery scent, but not offensive. I'll be trying that for the next load... three day weekend... lots of chances to try new laundry aids...

 

[MrX]

I can't see what the fuss is ?!

To be quite honest, I can't see what the fuss is here. If you've seen the kind of damage that phosphates do to lakes and waterways you'd really change your mind about using them.

As I'm sure you know, phosphates used as builders in detergents behave as nitrate fertiliser when released into waterways. They can't be removed via normal sewage treatment facilities and simply wash into rivers, lakes and harbours.

They cause algae and various other aquatic plants to grow at enormously rapid rates and they choke up the waterways, turn them green and remove all the oxygen from them. The lack of dissolved oxygen kills the fish and the next thing you know you've a river that has no life other than algae in it.

I have never experienced ANY problems with the likes of Persil, Ariel, Surf, Bold, or any of the main stream detergents on the market here in Ireland, none of which have contained phosphates for a long time. They all perform excellently and, the newer formulas actually seem to remove stains far more effectively and at much lower temps than their ancestors in the 1960s and 70s (based on accounts of my grandmother). Pre-treating and in-wash boosters (vanish, ace etc) are not selling well because the mainstream (and even store-brand) detergents are so good on their own.

I would appeal to you to think before you use phosphates. There are very good and very effective alternatives!

 

[westtexman]

Good point, but . .

We don't have that problem as much in the western half of the United States, because there is not water where I live. Here in West Texas, we live in a desert-like region where there are no streams or rivers for our wastewater to run. Ours goes to the local water treatment plant where they are adequately prepared to handle phosphates in the water. Our biggest problem here is nitrates in our water, which is caused by an excessive number of prairie dogs in our area.

I agree that detergents have vastly improved over the years, but in areas where the water is very hard (like mine), NOTHING can get my whites as white as a dose of STPP in the wash with a good-quality detergent.

 

[tomturbomatic]

Suds: Were you able to see if there were still suds in the last rinse? Were the clothes cleaned to your satisfaction and comparable to results with other products you have used? At least phosphate free Mexican detergents will lessen the threat to the United States when Mexican truckers are allowed to start driving their big trucks across the border and all over the United States this weekend delivering who knows what. It amazes me how something that most of the citizens don't want can be forced on us by provisions of a treaty which was either not closely examined by congress or allowed to go through with the attitude that it would be some other officials' problem when it happened. Now we have a president who wants to eliminate any separation between Mexico and the United States of America so it's no problem to the administration. Never mind that neither Mexican trucks nor drivers are regulated by the Department of Transportation regulations and that they will drive across the "border" ha ha without being inspected, at least according to the news reports.

MRX: Sewage treatment plants could have been upgraded to handle phosphates, but it was considered cheaper to ban them from detergents which threw the burden on corporations instead of having water and sewage treatment systems which are at least quasi-governmental entities have to raise taxes to upgrade treatment plants. The funny thing is that they have raised taxes anyway via "surcharges" and "systems fees" on the bills we receive. In this area,at least, the water still is full of phosphates because of the runoff from the poultry farms on the Eastern Shore operated by Perdue and Tyson Foods and the farmers in Pennsylvania who let the cow manure wash down into streams, when, that is, the cows are not standing in the water while pooping. Next under attack is dishwasher detergent. The legislature will ban phosphates in that and still have the powerful agribusiness and farm intersts getting away with wide scale pollution. Frankly, if I had to choose my source of phosphates, I would rather rather receive them from a cleaner source than animal waste.

Westtexman: You blame an excess of prarie dogs for the nitrate pollution, but I read somewhere that the reason ranchers do not like prarie dogs is that praire dogs make holes into which bovines step and break their legs. Now if there are prairie dogs depositing their bodily wastes on the same fields in which cattle are grazing, don't you think that at least some of the pollution problem could be from the cattle?

 

[sudsmaster]

MRX,

You are misinformed about phosphates.

1) Phosphates tend to bind tightly to soil and are not readily "washed into rivers, lakes, and harbours".

2) Phosphates do not "behave as nitrate fertilizer". Phosphates are one of three nutrients essential for plant growth: NPK (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium (K)). Algae typically have a very low requirement for Potassium (K). By themselves, phosphates will not support algal growth. However, due primarily to anthrogenic factors, nitrogen is in excess in many waterways. Rather than address the cause - high nitrogen levels - governments try to ban phosphorus, making it a limiting factor in algal growth. You can have a phosphate-free but highly polluted (with nitrogen) waterway. Oh, and algal euthrophication doesn't take place in running waterways, like rivers and streams.

Phosphorus can be and is removed in tertiary waste water treatment plants, and the byproduct, calcium phosphate, can be recycled for use as an animal feed supplement (such as in chicken feed). Because phosphorus doesn't migrate in soil very well, a proper septic field will contain it - unlike nitrogen which is readily leached out.

The proper solution is to limit total water pollution - with nitrogen being the main culprit. Limiting phosphorus without addressing the real problem simply masks the problem, it doesn't fix it. Oh, and the average human family flushes more phosphates down the loo (bodily wastes) than a washer using phosphated detergents would. I suppose we could ban phosphates in human food, but people would start dying rather quickly as a result.

TomT:

I'm not sure what if any connection there is between phosphated Mexican detergents and lessening the "mexican trucker threat". There were some suds in the final Viva rinse. Haven't dried the load yet so don't know what the final result may be. Initial inspection shows that the laundry was cleaned well enough.

Texman:

Yep, in the arid Southwest, phosphates are not the issue when it comes to waterways. Nitrogen pollution is far more serious. This is why states like California and Texas don't ban phosphates in laundry detergents.

 

[peterh770]

Not to mention that there is by far more phosphates put into water by fertilizer and human poop (food preservatives) than by laundry detergents.

 

[sudsmaster]

Peter,

Food preservatives have little to nothing to do with phosphate levels in human waste.

Phosphorus is an essential human nutrient. It's in every meal, in abundance. We only use a certain amount for our bones and to support our metabolic and genetic processes (phophorus is a key energy transporting chemical in muscle and RNA/DNA replication). Food preservatives (and I can't think of any that are particularly phosphate rich, other than STPP, which is more of a humectant than preservative) won't much effect phosphorus levels in the diet or in waste.

 

[westtexman]

Tom . .

Prairie Dogs cause a multitude of problems where I live. They do, in fact, burrow under the ground, and they deposit the majority of their waste there - as opposed to dropping it on top of the soil. They also help themselves to the vegetation growing on local farms, and then they do make those pesky holes!

Cattle does contribute to the nitrate problem, but in areas where large number of cattle graze, most of the manure is picked up on a regular basis and hauled off to be used for other purposes such as fertilizer.

 

[tomturbomatic]

"Phosphorus is an essential human nutrient. It's in every meal, in abundance. We only use a certain amount for our bones and to support our metabolic and genetic processes"

Like adenosene triphosphate ATP, Adenosine diphosphate, ADP! Yea for the Citric acid (or Kreb's) cycle, photosynthesis and its reverse process cellular respiration!! If you study about this and all that is going on inside cells to make energy you can begin to think of yourself as a machine with an internal combustion engine. It is miraculous.

 

[sudsmaster]

What is even more amazing, Tom, is that once all the molecules are in place, the whole thing is self-sustaining providing nutrients, water, and air are provided. Not to offend any creationists here, but the origin of life is without a doubt the result of energetically favorable chemical phenomena. And once it got started, our own existence was more or less inevitable... in time...

 

[MrX]

It's pretty safe too, given how rare spontaneous human combustion is hehe