Beth’s piece focuses on the need for greater regulation to require the use of green building strategies, and I argue that the same is true for healthy building materials. When designers, builders, and developers choose toxic materials, they risk liability for the harm they cause to the users of their spaces as well as those involved along the supply chain.  

As architects and designers, we bear a profound responsibility to shape the world around us, not just aesthetically, but also ethically and responsibly. Our designs don’t exist in isolation; they interact intimately with the lives of individuals, communities, and the environment. In this regard, the materials we specify play a pivotal role in shaping the health and safety of the spaces we create.

Cost & Performance:
From a material cost point of view, healthier materials can often be comparable to the price points of more toxic materials. However, the time and labor hours spent researching, validating, and tracking healthier material selections and certifications can significantly add to total project costs, and this is often a barrier to designers’ selection process. The reality is, it takes less time to select finishes when we’re only focused on performance and aesthetics, without the added layer of validating and certifying material health properties too. 

There’s little motivation for clients to choose healthy materials:
Clients are faced with a variety of pressures and priorities, like staying within budget and getting the project done on schedule. They also might assume that the government is regulating and eliminating toxic products from the market – which is not the case. Without awareness and the drive from company values, regulatory requirements, or consumer demand, there may be little motivation for clients to choose healthier materials, especially in any case where there is a cost premium. As much as designers can advocate for healthier materials on our projects, we are often limited by project priorities and available project fee hours.

Navigating the complexities of certifications–information overload:
With all of the project responsibilities designers must juggle, and a vast landscape of material certifications with different levels of rigor and limited considerations beyond the use phase, it can be overwhelming and burdensome to understand and navigate healthier material product selection. After all, we are not scientists!

For example, it’s common for housing developers to opt for Luxury Vinyl Tile (LVT) due to its durability, easy installation, and low first cost. However, we can see by looking at the Informed Product Guidance that LVT is in the red category. Phthalates, chemicals known to disrupt the hormonal system, were once commonly found in LVT. While in recent years we’ve seen more and more phthalate-free LVT products become available, even “better” vinyl is still not a preferred material! This is because of the toxic processes required to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and the toxic pollution created when it’s disposed of. And let’s not forget, vinyl is a form of plastic derived from fossil fuels, so its use continues our reliance on the polluting fossil fuel industry at a time when we are electrifying our buildings to decrease fossil fuel use.

What does that all really mean? Not only can building products have negative health impacts on the daily occupants of a space, they often impact installers, factory workers handling the material production, and the communities living near those processes. And unfortunately in the case of housing, renters are likely unaware of any of this when selecting a place to live. Which brings us back to the dilemma for designers: is it really ethical to specify a material when we know its negative health impacts? And if we make the decision to take care in our specifications, how can we encourage our clients to approve healthier alternatives?