Certain Doubt

Triclosan: Coming Soon to a Store Near…. Oh Wait, it’s already here.

Author: Thomas Vincent posted on Sunday, April 11th, 2010 at 1:01 pm

Walking down a mega-store aisle these days can feel like walking through a mine field. The list of harmful ingredients in the products we buy is daunting to say the least. MSG, Trans-fats, High-fructose corn syrup, in our food; dioxins, PCBs, even lead in paint and gasoline. And while these products are not as deadly as say, a claymore, a bouncing betty, or a homemade IED, they are nonetheless all demonstrably unhealthy for the human body.

Now, there’s a new substance to add to the list, or rather an old substance that has recently come to light as a possible health hazard: Triclosan.

Triclosan is an antibacterial chemical found in a surprising number of home products. Originally developed as a surgical scrub for medical professionals, in recent years, it has been added to a host of consumer products to kill bacteria and fungus and prevent odors. Triclosan is now used in liquid soaps, hand sanitizers, dishwashing liquids, and shaving gels. It is even incorporated into clothing, cutting boards and toys. In fact, examine any home product that touts its “anti-bacterial” qualities and you will probably find it lists triclosan among its ingredients.

The Washington Post reports that the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency are taking a fresh look at triclosan:

In a letter to a congressman that was obtained by The Washington Post, the FDA said that recent scientific studies raise questions about whether triclosan disrupts the body’s endocrine system and whether it helps to create bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.

The FDA was responding to inquiries from Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who has been pushing federal regulators to take stronger action to restrict the use of triclosan and other chemicals that have been shown in laboratory tests to interfere with the delicate endocrine system, which regulates growth and development.

In the letter, the Federal Drug Administration is quoted as saying: “It is the FDA’s opinion that existing data raise valid concerns (italics mine) about the effects of repetitive daily human exposure to these antiseptic ingredients.”

The Washington Post continues:

Because it is found in so many different types of products, triclosan is regulated by three different federal agencies: the FDA, the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But the FDA, which oversees its use in personal-care products, medical devices and products that come into contact with food, has been working for 38 years to establish the rules for the use of triclosan but has not completed that task.

Dangers:

Dr. Sara Janssen, staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council outlines some of the concerns about triclosan and its sister chemical trilocarban:

Both of these chemicals are hormone-disrupting chemicals… Triclosan interferes with thyroid hormone. We know that other thyroid-disrupting chemicals have been shown to alter development of the brain and nervous system, causing problems with learning or behavior later in life, and we are concerned that triclosan could have similar effects.

Triclocarban is a unique type of hormone-disrupting chemical which has not been found to have any hormone-disrupting properties on its own but has been shown to enhance the activity of other hormones, such as the sex hormones, estrogen and testosterone. Boosting your sex hormones isn’t necessarily a good thing! For someone with a hormonally dependent cancer, that could mean more hormonal stimulation of cancer cell growth.

Hormone disruptors are found in our electronics, furniture, carpeting, food packaging, drinking water, cosmetics and personal care products. We are bombarded on a daily basis with dozens of different chemicals from many different places. While one chemical by itself may not pose a big health risk, it’s this cumulative exposure that we’re concerned about because all of these chemicals can act together as a group to cause greater harm than one alone.

Environmental Concerns:

While Dr. Janssen acknowledges that the current research on the personal toxicity is incomplete, as she points out there are plenty of environmental reasons for concern about triclosan:

There is concern that the widespread use of these antibacterial chemicals is promoting antibiotic resistance, which is a looming public health crisis…. In addition, when applied to your skin or your kitchenware, these chemicals don’t just stay there but eventually are washed down the drain, flowing to water treatment plants where they end up in very high concentrations in sewage sludge. Triclosan and triclocarban are highly persistent in the environment, resisting breakdown for decades. This sludge is spread on agricultural fields as fertilizer and one study has shown that earthworms in fields recently treated with sludge contained high levels of triclosan compared to earthworms from organic fields, which did not have any detectable triclosan. This is deeply concerning since worms are indicators of contaminants that are entering the food web.

It is just this potential affect on the environment that concerns Food & Water Watch, a Washington, D.C. based non-governmental organization and consumer rights group: “Triclosan is toxic to algae, phytoplankton, and other aquatic life. Because triclosan’s mode of action is to inhibit fatty acid synthesis in bacteria, and because bacteria and plants have similar fatty acid biosynthesis pathways, triclosan may also have inhibitory effects on plants.”

FWW also quotes numerous studies showing that: “…triclosan, when exposed to sunlight, and when interacting with chemicals such as chlorine in tap water, degrades into toxic breakdown and intermediate products.”

Studies:

There is no shortage of research about triclosan.The EPA, FDA, and CDC have all done studies on the chemical. Until recently, however, most of the examination focused on the chemical’s efficacy as an anti-bacterial agent. New studies have begun to focus on the chemical’s long term biological and environmental effects:

A 2008 study by University of California-Davis researchers calls into question the widespread use of two active ingredients (triclosan and triclocarban) in personal hygiene products, including anti-bacterial bar and liquid soaps. Using human and animal cell lines, they found that triclosan disrupts reproductive hormone activity and interferes with a type of cell signaling that occurs in brain, heart, and other cells. The study was published online in Environmental Health Perspectives, a publication of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (one of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)).

*(See Appendix for links to othe triclosan studies)

Ubiquitous

To say triclosan has become ubiquitous in everyday life is a gross understatement. According to the Environmental Working Group, an independent non-profit research organization , In addition to its use in 75 percent of liquid hand soaps, the EPA: ”…has approved triclosan for use in 20 pesticide formulations applied to consumer products from credit cards and countertops to baby bibs and blankets.”

The EPA study itself list a myriad of other applications as well:

In commercial, institutional, and industrial equipment uses, triclosan is incorporated in conveyor belts, fire hoses, dye bath vats, or ice-making equipment as an antimicrobial pesticide. Triclosan can be directly applied to commercial HVAC coils, where it prevents microbial growth.
As a material preservative, triclosan is used in many products including adhesives, fabrics, vinyl, plastics (toys, toothbrushes), polyethylene, polyurethane, polypropylene, floor wax emulsions, textiles (footwear, clothing), caulking compounds, sealants, rubber, carpeting, and a wide variety of other products. It has been used in latex paints

Moreover, as the CDC study shows, it’s become ubiquitous in our bodies as well:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has examined human exposure to environmental chemicals. It reports that people are most likely exposed to triclosan by absorption through the skin or through the lining of the mouth (mucosa).
CDC scientists tested the urine of 2,517 people ages six years and older who took part in a nationwide National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2003-2004. They found that (1) triclosan was detected in the urine of nearly 75% of those tested; (2) triclosan levels were greater among people in the highest income bracket than among those in either the middle or lower income brackets; and (3) no differences in triclosan levels were found either by sex or race/ethnicity.

Industry Reaction:

As might be expected, the chemical industry’s reaction to people’s concerns is to dismiss them as “hair-on-fire” histrionics. ”It’s been in use for over 40 years,” says Brian Sansoni, a spokesman for the Soap and Detergent Association, whose members produce soaps and body washes. ”We have seen absolutely no clear evidence that use of triclosan or any other antibacterial ingredient is leading to hormone problems in human beings,” Sansoni says. “It’s a great leap,” he says, to go from animal study results to human study results.

If this statement seems familiar, it should. It is virtually the same argument as that used by the tobacco companies to justify the use of their cancer causing product for decades. The industry is quick to cite Government studies stating that: “…the health effects of triclosan in people are unknown,” “Few adverse effects are seen in animal studies,” and “…More research is needed.”
Nevertheless, anyone who doubts there is serious lobbying muscle being applied to the FDA, the EPA, and the CDC to declare triclosan “safe,” should check out the number of chemical companies currently manufacturing and selling this substance world wide:
(See appendix for industry websites touting manufacturers currently producing triclosan. )

Efficacy

Perhaps the most insidious thing about the chemical triclosan is that with all the recent concern over its toxicity and safety, it doesn’t even appear to be that good at doing the job for which it was first formulated.

According to the American Medical Association, ‘Despite their recent proliferation in consumer products, the use of antimicrobial agents such as triclosan… No data exist to support their efficacy when used in such products or any need for them… it may be prudent to avoid the use of antimcrobial agents in consumer products.

An advisory panel to the FDA said in 2005 that there was no evidence the antibacterial soaps work better than regular soap and water. Or as Dr. Sarah Janssen points out:“Using regular soap and water is the most effective way to clean your hands, and regular soap doesn’t carry any potential health risks like the so-called “antibacterial” products.”

Janssen says the soap industry is taking advantage of consumer fears to http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/09-2: “Especially with the H1N1 outbreak, people get really scared and think they need to take extra precautions…

Other Countries:

While US government agencies have been slow to warn consumers about the possible health and environmental effects of triclosan, European countries, including members of the European union are starting to line up against the chemical. According to a report published in Esmerk Norwegian News, Mattilsynet, the Norwegian food authority is calling for an EU ban on the substance. Environmental regulatory agencies in Sweden, Finland and Denmark have also voiced concern about the chemical.

Major retailers in Britain have decided to get rid of it. Marks & Spencer, Asda, B&Q and Sainsbury’s all told the Sunday Herald that they are hoping to phase out triclosan from their products.

In August 2009 the Canadian Medical Association asked the Canadian government to ban triclosan use in household products under concerns of creating bacterial resistance and producing dangerous side products (chloroform).

Conclusion:

Regardless of what conclusions are reached by the CDC, FDA, and EPA – if they ever reach a consensus at all – the mere fact that a man made chemical is showing up in the urine of 75 percent of humans across the planet should be enough to give us pause. That it has potentially toxic properties and possible far reaching environmental effects should cause people to view it as suspect.

But the fact that it doesn’t even do what it claims – i.e. fight bacteria in the home – any better than plain old soap, makes it’s prevalence all the more suspicious. The widespread production and sales of triclosan reeks of one more instance of chemical corporations promoting the use of something humans don’t need, something that might be harmful for us and the planet, all for the sake of profit.

I say that’s reason enough to eliminate it from our store shelves.

Appendix:
Background information on triclosan: 1, 2,

3, 4, 5

Triclosan Studies:

http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/data_tables/Triclosan_ChemicalInformation.html

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/triclosan_fs.htm

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.10768

http://www.ewg.org/reports/triclosan

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0245.htm

http://vkm.no/dav/117573d6c4.pdf

Sites Listing Triclosan Manufacturers:

http://www.chemicalregister.com/Triclosan/Suppliers/pid14024.htm

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/triclosan.html

http://panjiva.com/Indian-Manufacturers-Of/triclosan

http://www.poulvet.com/bulk_drugs/product_companies.php?sclid=1511

Tags: AMA, antibiotic, CDC, chemicals, dioxin, Environment, EPA, FDA, hormone disruptor, triclosan

This entry is filed under Daily Rant, Politics, economics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.