MORE than a decade ago, the UK’s Royal Society of Chemistry offered £1 million to the first person in the world to create a chemical-free product. No one has yet claimed the bounty because it is impossible. Water is a chemical. So is your cuppa. Yet there is still so much confusion about everyday products, from cleaning sprays to cosmetics. While some are labelled as chemical free, others declare they are non-toxic, natural and eco-friendly. What does it all really mean? And can we believe it?

To work out whether products contain toxic chemicals, which are harmful or hazardous to us or the planet, we need to look at the bigger picture of how something is manufactured and where it ends up after we have used it. Our homes are just a snapshot of a complex global supply chain. Your handbag may not be dangerous, but direct exposure to the chromium salts used in commercial leather tanning factories can trigger chronic conditions in people involved in its production. And that chlorine bleach that gets flushed down the toilet? That is poisonous to aquatic animals. There may even be a picture of a dead fish on the back to prove it.

Labels are so full of jargon, however, that deciphering what is good and what isn’t can feel impossible. A starting point is to not be duped by outlandish marketing lingo. Even the term “sustainable” has no official definition, so for green credentials look for proof of claims in the form of certifications, such as Cradle to Cradle, which ensures the chemicals used are safe for people and the environment, and that they get reused in the manufacturing process.

Also be sceptical about labels focusing on what a product doesn’t contain, such as “paraben-free” or “no nasties”. Real transparency is about disclosing ingredients, not distracting us from them.

Such greenwash isn’t yet regulated, but in the UK, the government and Competition and Markets Authority recently introduced a green claims code that suggests , such as better transparency. In the European Union, the Circular Economy Action Plan proposes regulations to stipulate that sustainability claims must be proved.

This matters because, although the risks are low, some chemical contaminants increase the chances of developing certain cancers, disrupt brain development or interfere with the body’s hormones. These risks aren’t fully understood and may be contributed to by a toxic cocktail effect that is missing from lab experiments – we are rarely exposed to just one chemical at a time.

One way to minimise your long-term exposure to toxic chemicals is to streamline the number of products you use and focus on conscious consumption. Ditch the added extras – the overtly fragranced air fresheners, the period pants with antimicrobial nanosilver, the school trousers with hard-wearing, non-stick patches inside the knees. These chemicals just aren’t necessary.

That said, it is practically impossible to live a life free from toxic chemicals. Robin Dodson at the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, Massachusetts, has found that people who paid close attention and actively avoided specific hormone-disrupting chemicals had a lower . But even though Dodson herself took steps to avoid such chemicals, when she tested her own urine for 10 of the most common hormone-disrupting chemicals found in household products, some were present at surprisingly high levels.

Ultimately, it shouldn’t be our responsibility to navigate this. But until long-term effects on people and the planet are investigated, we should choose brands that are fully transparent and call for clearer labelling from the rest.

Anna Turns is author of Go Toxic Free: Easy and sustainable ways to reduce chemical pollution

Podcast

So Hot Right Now

12 episodes, all podcast providers

THE way that we communicate the climate crisis needs a rethink, from the language used in daily conversations to the frequency it makes front page headlines.

The So Hot Right Now podcast goes to the heart of the issue. Far from detailing climate science, species extinctions or innovative technical fixes, the show questions the status quo and shares refreshing insight from experts, campaigners and front-line presenters.

“We tend to focus on gaps in our climate science knowledge and there’s so much to learn, but what people are less alert to is this massive gap in coverage and that’s hampering our chances of mainstreaming these topics. We need more airtime, more screen time for climate and nature,” says co-host, journalist Lucy Siegle. “We’re pushing the agenda, uncovering the barriers and exploring why the gatekeepers are not opening the gates, but also speaking to some of our heroes and asking them ‘what should we do?’.”

Siegle and wildlife film-maker Tom Mustill interview A-list guests such as Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, UN climate negotiator Christiana Figueres and singer Ellie Goulding, who believes activism jeopardises her job. “I lose followers [on social media] every time I post about climate change. I lose at least a thousand followers,” says Goulding during a podcast. She continues to speak up regardless.

In the first episode, David Attenborough says he has no idea why Blue Planet II sparked such an extreme public reaction to plastic pollution when he had been “plugging away” at the issue for years. “Suddenly, there was an unprecedented response, possibly down to the scheduling or the mood of the nation. Audiences are very hard to predict,” he says.

Successful communication hinges on finding new avenues of storytelling that connect us to the natural world. As BBC Springwatch presenter Gillian Burke concludes in a later episode: “I’m really starting to play with the language, storytelling, identity and labels. If we’re looking at the climate crisis through the lens of an Aboriginal person in Australia, how will that story be different? Language for me is a gateway to revealing more about the way we see the world.”

Nuance exists in every word we use, suggests Siegle: “If language is too comfortable, it can minimise threat and the need for action, it can sometimes be downright dismissive or it can be too technical, forgetting that we respond to emotion, or it can be too emotional and not precise enough.” Or, as Mustill adds, “it can be really boring. Part of the aim of communication is surely to entertain. No one wants to be a climate bore.”

With a curious yet informal tone, some episodes last more than an hour and might work better as shorter, more finely tuned pieces. But there are no set rules and So Hot Right Now embraces the freedom to be experimental.

At times, the hosts seem starstruck (David Attenborough is thanked repeatedly for all he has done to inspire generations) but, generally, Siegle and Mustill enthusiastically arm listeners with a toolkit of useful strategies to articulate big ideas about climate and trigger more discussions.

Whether you are addressing world leaders about the environment, connecting with social media followers about the issue or arguing with relatives about it, So Hot Right Now is well worth a listen.