Slow Death by Rubber Duck

Author:Rick Smith [Smith, Rick]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 978-0-307-37401-1
Publisher: Knopf Canada
Published: 2009-03-03T16:00:00+00:00

The Germs Bite Back

The over-triclosanitization of the planet wouldn’t be such a big deal if it weren’t for a few niggling problems:

mounting evidence that, in many products, it works no better than competing products that have no triclosan

increasing levels in people and the environment that have now been linked to health problems—and the biggie:

good reason to think that it’s contributing to bacterial resistance, aka the rise of “superbugs”

Let’s look at each of these in turn.

First off, are “antibacterial” soaps really no better than “normal” products from competitors? Well, in household settings, this would seem to be the case. Studies published by the American Medical Association, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s journal Emerging Infectious Diseases come to similar conclusions: that in household settings, there is no evidence to suggest that the use of antibacterial soap is more beneficial than the use of soap and water in reducing bacteria or the rate of disease.5 Another study, of two hundred American households, concluded that people who use antibacterial products have no reduced risk for infectious disease symptoms.6

Recently, another large study of American households found that soaps containing triclosan at concentrations of less than 0.3% were generally no more effective than plain soap at preventing infectious illness symptoms and reducing bacteria on the hands.7 Regardless of where the samples were gathered, there was little benefit associated with the use of soap containing triclosan compared to using plain, regular soap.8

Stuart Levy, one of the authors of this study, points out that “in household products, triclosan is probably somewhere around one-fifth or one-tenth the concentrations that are used in hospitals.” Levy supports the prudent use of triclosan (“it’s great in hospitals”) but objects to its use in lower concentrations in a more widespread way. Enough chemical is being put in the products to tout them as “antibacterial” but not always enough to actually kill the germs on our hands.

Secondly, evidence of the bioaccumulative and persistent nature of triclosan is mounting. It tends to build up in animal and human fat tissues and has been detected in umbilical cord blood as well. Research in both Europe and the U.S. has found triclosan present in the umbilical cord blood of infants. Swedish studies have documented high levels of triclosan in women’s breastmilk.9 In one paper published in 2002, it was found in three of five breastmilk samples. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found triclosan in the urine of 75 per cent of the more than 2,500 Americans tested.10

As the use of triclosan becomes more widespread in consumer products, the likelihood of its being emitted into waterways also increases, since approximately 95 per cent of products containing triclosan end up going down the drain. Triclosan was one of the most frequently detected compounds in a U.S. Geological Survey of American streams, likely a result of its presence in discharges of treated wastewater. The survey studied 95 different organic wastewater contaminants.11 While wastewater treatment can remove much of the triclosan and other compounds, not all compounds will be removed.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.