by Benjamen Johnson
One day my wife brought home an invitation to a Norwex party after picking up our son from preschool. Apparently all the mothers were positively glowing about their microfiber cloth products. They were saying that you didn’t need any cleaning solutions, just this use this silver impregnated microfiber cloth and water. The claim sounded too good to be true; it set my skeptic senses tingling.
The first thing I did was try to find the Norwex website to see exactly what they sold and what they claimed. From their website:
Our line of cleaning products will save you time & money, improve health, and move towards creating a better environment. Norwex microfiber goes beyond “surface clean” with the innovative use of silver particles integrated into synthetic microfiber cloth ensure:
- Single-celled micro-organisms such as bacteria, fungi, yeast, and viruses cannot survive or adapt in silver exposure
- Surface-to-surface cross-contamination is eliminated
- Rapidly drying cloths prevent bacteria growth in the cloth itself
Cleaning with water only produces a healthy outcome for us and the environment.
Laboratory tests have proven that Norwex antibacterial microfiber reduced bacteria by 99.99% in 24 hours!
Breaking the marketing down line by line I spotted the following red flags:
- The product makes some big claims.
- Since when is a virus a micro-organism?
- They only give laboratory results for antibacterial properties, but what about fungi, yeast, and viruses?
And I asked the following questions:
- How do the silver particles in the cloth get close enough to kill the “micro-organisms” on the surface?
- Who performed these laboratory tests, what tests were performed, and what were the actual results?
- Would you get the same result with a normal Micro-fiber cloth?
The red flags by themselves don’t necessarily mean the claims aren’t true. Many legitimate products inflate their claims and get facts wrong in ad copy — colloquially people call a virus a micro-organism, but technically it’s not. I was a bit more worried about the cherry picking of results. Still there wasn’t enough information from the Norwex website to make an informed decision.
The next thing to ask was, “does the science check out?” Unfortunately, in this case there was so much misinformation about silver on the web that trying to wade through the ton of information to separate out the science from the bunk would have been pointless for somebody who’s not a microbiologist.
The only thing left for me was to try to find other trustworthy people who have written about the product and see if their reasoning held up. Searching for Norwex on Google, I was buried in sites giving the products glowing reviews — all testimonials and anecdotal evidence, no real science. The only place I found people critical of Norwex was a thread in the JREF forums.
On the forums several people asked the same questions I did. One reasonable sounding person, who turned out to be a Norwex consultant, gave the name of a different Norwex website that seemed to explain some of their claims without the marketing speak, but still didn’t address the elephant in the room: are Norwex microfiber cloths any better than normal microfiber cloths or other common cleaning products? One person actually acquired studies Norwex cites and forwarded them on to another forum poster who said he was a biologist. Here’s his summary:
Overall, none of the cited materials say anything valid about the superiority of the Norwex microfiber cloth (or the earlier ACT cloth) over cleaning with an actual cleaner (e.g. bleach). The only testing that they cite was completely non valid for that purpose, and involved dropping a material on a surface and wiping it off. This is entirely unlike actual household or hospital conditions. Based on my review of the supplied documents provided by Norwex, it is my opinion as a biologist that their claims of being able to safely and effectively replace chemical cleaning agents with just water are unsupported.
In conclusion, I never found any real hard evidence to back up the claims Norwex makes, only anecdotes, testimonials, and marketing hype. Until they publish some real peer-reviewed, double blind studies, I would neither spend my money on their product nor trust it to disinfect any area of my home.
Tags: consumer protection, household products, scientific studies, skepticism
Thanks for that article. I’m a Norwex consultant and have the same irks about the absence of viral/fungal tests. I do feel sorry for your local Norwex consultant!
)
Aside from that argument, it kicks butt cleaning against any other green cleaning agent and a bunch of chemical ones too. Most people just love how it lasts for years and does the job well.
take care
zippy
I just got a Norwex cloth for Christmas from my mom who tried to sell me on all of its ‘magical’ properties, and I have started searching online for answers as to whether there is any good science to back up all of the claims that are made (I am very doubtful), which is how I found this post. I think at this point I’ll just use it like I would any other rag.
Your thoughts are flawed in a few ways. 1: norwex does not claim to kill germs on contact as you think they have. None of your household cleaners can do that either including bleach. Silver as well as chemicals like bleach require prolonged contact with germs, micro whatys, or viruses or whatever you want to call them. The difference with norwex is the microfiber swipe across your counter removes the bacteria or virus from your surface and retains it. Then over several hours the organisms are killed as they sit amongst the nano silver hoobagawhatyswith in the cloth. I am not a biologist and was able to figure that out. Here is a link with some research Mr. Biologist
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3594/can-one-use-norwexs-microfiber-cloths-and-products-to-clean-without-chemicals
Micro-whatys? Are you serious?
First, you are right they do not claim to kill germs on contact.
Second, thank you for pointing me to the skeptics StackExchange site, I’ve never run across it before.
Third, the analysis of the Norwex claims on the stackexchange site are interesting, which begs the question, why isn’t Norwex presenting this evidence, rather than the weak studies they cite as evidence. They make a specific claim “Laboratory tests have proven that Norwex antibacterial microfiber reduced bacteria by 99.99% in 24 hours!” but they did not produce that study when questioned. If a company want to use science to back up their claims, they better have the science to back up their claims.
Fourth, from the analysis. “In other words, these aren’t wiping/cleaning tests for a contaminated surface; they’re simply finding out if bacterial cultures grow on the material, and find that they don’t.” Not growing and killing are not the same thing.” This statement satisfies the specific claims in that article, not the ones made in this one.
I’m not convinced that Norwex works any better than any other cheaper microfiber cloth to remove bacteria, fungi, yeast, and viruses from surfaces. And I certainly wouldn’t trust their product alone to keep from spreading soumanilla or other nastiness either. So whats the point of buying their overpriced rag?
The point is u are not buying a closet of chemicals repeatedly which are far more expensive and take up a ton o space. I guarantee that niether u or your wife use any of the chemicals ina manner that kills germs even half as well as you think they are (who is going to bleach soak their counter top for 10 minutes everytime a contaminate is used. Lucky if you do it once every few weeks. So if the rags are as effective as cleaner or even a little less effective then great, because the proper use with the rags is only a few wipes over the surface versus 10 min contact which no one does. Our laziness is what make the rags more effective than traditional chemicals. Then we ge to the ability of cleaning glass without streaks e even with a dirty rag. Saves windex and paper towels (cotton rags are streak machines). Soapscum is another big one. Remover is expensive whereas with microfiber all you need is water. I am sure there are less expensive alternatives, but dont atack the company for false claims because u dont agree with their prices. I am sure we could look through your expenses and find more rediculous things that u have wasted far more money on. For the record… I dont sell or distribute norwex or have any connections with company besides just using a few products. And excuse the grammar, typin on the phone is a pain.
@Nathan S. Hmm… WordPress won’t let me reply to your last comment.
That is the crux of the matter. So far there is no evidence that the Norwex is any more effective than any old microfiber cloth. So why buy a more expensive product that you just can’t go to the store to buy?
Otherwise you could use that same argument for just about any other pseudoscience where the evidence doesn’t support it. For example, I’m too lazy to eat right so I’ll just take a bunch of supplements. But again there is no evidence besides the supplement marketing that routine supplementation is beneficial.
I am not “attacking” the company. I am simply demanding that they back up their claims. Are you saying it’s OK to come out with a statement like: “Laboratory tests have proven that Norwex antibacterial microfiber reduced bacteria by 99.99% in 24 hours!” and not give the study that claim is made in?
And yes, I’m sure I’ve wasted my money on ridiculous things, in fact writing this article made me wonder the same thing, but that again has no bearing on the matter.
Interesting discussion, and yes – thanks for the introduction to StackExchange!
It seems that the claims are these:
1) Surfaces get contaminated with bacteria.
2) Bacteria can be killed with either
a) household cleaners IF left on the contaminated surface for the appropriate amount of time, or
b) If removed from the surface and exposed for an appropriate amount of time to the silver embedded in Norwex microfiber cloths.
If the silver (+time) is the active ingredient here, then that would argue that Norwex *is* superior to other microfiber clothes that are not embedded with silver. The studies cited on StackExchange indicate that microfiber is fairly good at removing microorganisms from certain surfaces.
Bacteria is not killed on the surface with a silver cloth. It’s the microfiber itself that picks up >99% of common bacteria from hard surfaces with just water. Norwex studies (albeit old and confusing) show this to be the case. Another company’s independent research shows it about their cloth as well: e-cloth®. Their research is done by Silliker, a world-reknowned lab who does food safety testing for McDonald’s, Kraft, Carrefour, etc. and is very credible.
But the silver is completely unnecessary to the process of removing the bacteria. The silver is also secondary as an inhibitor of bacterial growth, because high-quality microfiber dries very quickly and therefore in and of itself is an inhibitor of bacterial growth. All the silver does is speed the killing of the bacteria that will die anyway if you let your cloth dry. That, and it ups the price of your microfiber.
No one has mentioned here that while you can kill 99+% of bacteria with chemical cleaners if you leave them on the surface for long enough, you can never get the whole 100%. Imagine that little leftover bit of bacteria as it realizes the chemical threat to its life and mutates to protect itself.
I’ll take removing bacteria any day over killing it. Safer and healthier. No silver required.
I’ve been using the cloths for about a month now, and I’m extremely happy for one reason: They don’t smell bad. You can use them constantly out for 2 weeks and if you rinse them out properly, they don’t smell. Why is it that other washcloths and sponges smell bad a day or two after you use them? Mildew. Just leave a wet sock sitting around and it mildews. It even turns pink after a week or so.
I’m convinced that silver at least kills mildew (certain kinds of mold or fungi), since I’m pretty sure microfiber on its own doesn’t.
I’m also frustrated with the lack of easily found research. I wonder if it’s because most people are satisfied with just trying them out, so the first results that come up when you look online aren’t scientifically backed.