Are "eco-friendly" paints better than normal "aqueous"?

[Ferdinand]

Question: Are so-called "natural" or "ecofriendly" paints much better than the aqueous-based paints which are now virtually everywhere?

 

Aside for a rant

---------------------

I ask because, on another forum, a link was posted to *this* piece in the Guardian; the article is dated March 19, 2019:

 

Quote

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/17/five-ways-to-make-your-home-less-toxic

We are surrounded by chemicals – in food and drink, cleaning products, household items and furnishings. Here’s how to reduce household pollution

 

and recommends:

 

Quote

Consider your paint choices

As well as the fumes and chemicals given out during painting, freshly decorated walls can continue to pollute long after they are dry. Paint labelled “ecofriendly” or “natural” due to its lowered levels of volatile organic compound (VOC) are not necessarily “green”, wrote interior design journalist Katherine Sorrell. Among her recommendations are Edward Bulmer Natural Paint, Aglaia, Biofa, Earthborn and Ecos Organic Paints.

 

The first thing to note is that this is thick-as-a-plank "journalism", because the "proof" link which includes these recommendations is to an article from 2009, that looked forward to new and better regulation being introduced in 2010.

 

ie The 2010 author Katherine Sorrell seems to be entirely careful and competent, and the 2019 author is a careless at best who seems to be more suited to Taboola or I Can Haz Cheeseburger, but is actually billed as a " former data journalist at the Guardian ".

 

Sigh.

---------------------------------

Anyhoo, back to the question:

 

Are so-called "natural" or "ecofriendly" paints much better than the aqueous-based paints which are now virtually everywhere, including DIY sheds?

 

My expectation is that there is little difference, and very probably not enough to justify a 300-500% price difference (from current prices on a couple of the recommendations vs Wickes full price).

 

Ferdinand

 

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Dudda]

I’ve only used 'natural' or 'ecofriendly' paints a few times. Once on an old church which had solid stone walls with a history of damp and wanted to ensure they were able to breath and dry out naturally. 
Other works were done which included lime re-pointing, electro osmosis and a new perimeter drain so in the grand scheme the paint wasn’t expensive.

 

The other time was on a LEED certified building where you get green credits for different things like reducing VOC’s like using natural paints and carpets or floor coverings that have low VOC's. 

 

Otherwise I never bother to use or specify these expensive paints.

[MrSniff]

I had understood that all water-based paints were almost VOC free (rather less so for a hybrid paint, but still better than oil-based) despite not being labelled as ECO or Green. I would certainly pay for and use a high quality water-based trim paint than spend out on what I suspect to be "trendy" ECO / green labelled paints.

 

Having read the article, referring to an article written 10 years previously rather justifies the rant! Very poor.

[scottishjohn]

are there any GOOD paints these days 

bring paints we had 20 years ago --that covered and dried and had a good lasting finish and don,t leave brush marks 

 all modern one are rubbish that i have seen or used 

not sure how eco friendly it  is having to repaint 3 times as often as old style paints.

my dad was a master painter and decorator  when he came back from the war ,being an engineer before the war --and he showed me how to use a brush =

not asking for lead based paints --but certainly new types are rubbish ,

maybe why very few full gloss finishs used these days on doors etc