"Frog Disruptor In My Soap", Revisited
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 08.30.07
This post is about a marketing paradox. It's about a product ingredient advertised for its ability to protect our health, which it does well in professional health care settings, but which may, indirectly, have the potential to do the opposite in consumer product applications. Previously we mentioned the surprising number of personal care products that contain very small amounts of the anti-bacterial compound Triclosan. Although Triclosan has an important role in keeping hospitals and clinics sterile, wide spread use of the compound in non-essential, dilute formulations for personal care products is a different matter. The concern is with direct impacts on fish and aquatic life, via wastewater discharges, as well as indirect impacts on human human health.
In our earlier "frog disruptor" post about Triclosan we speculated that an unstated rationale for formulating products with low levels of an antibacterial like Triclosan could be to increase product shelf life. Now comes an extensive review of the scientific literature by University of Michigan researchers which questions, broadly, the functionality and long range health benefits of Triclosan in consumer products.
"Antibacterial soaps that contain triclosan as the main active ingredient are no better at preventing infections than plain soaps, say University of Michigan researchers who reviewed 27 studies conducted between 1980 and 2006 to reach their conclusion."
"The team also concluded that these antibacterial soaps could actually pose a health risk, because they may reduce the effectiveness of some common antibiotics, such as amoxicillin. That's because -- unlike antibacterial soaps used in hospitals and other clinical settings -- the antibacterial soaps sold to the public don't contain high enough concentrations of triclosan to kill bacteria such as E. coli."
"In the first known comprehensive analysis of whether antibacterial soaps work better than plain soaps, Allison Aiello of the U-M School of Public Health and her team found that washing hands with an antibacterial soap was no more effective in preventing infectious illness than plain soap. Moreover, antibacterial soaps at formulations sold to the public do not remove any more bacteria from the hands during washing than plain soaps."
Closing comment: this new study being a literature review only, means additional research will likely be required before regulatory agencies like FDA feel they understand the risk/benefit trade off fully, and are prepared to act on that understanding. If you'd rather not wait for closure on that process, there are plenty of personal care products offered without anti-bacterial agents.
Via:: The Washington Post and University of Michigan, News Service Image credit:: Good For Business
This issue got me so angry when it arose - I wrote letter after letter and boycotted until every one of my favorite brands added an antibacterial agent and the change became history.
This demonstrates the absolutes lowest of the low in our socety - people who will literally gamble their childrens health for increased market share for a few months.
The problem of resistance was no secret - there were news articles and, in canada, I recall some major investigative news shows doing specials on it. But in the end, the marketing value of the word "Antibacterial" over-ruled reason... even to the point where people I know who tried to think through the issue gave up because thinking is hard and "Antibacterial" is good. 100% Brainwashed.
I don't blame consumers - you can't make people be more intelligent, but I DO blame regulatory agencies for selling out.
This issue represented everything that was (and still is) wrong with capitalism owning democracy.
My fantasy is that one day our culture comes to a breaking point where we form a persistant separation between business and regulation - with laws that severely deter lobbying.
I agree. I'm working on my Ph.D. in the biomedical sciences and earned my M.S. investigating antimicrobial design. As far as I'm concerned putting triclosan or other microbicides into soaps and such is uneeded. It rarely works as advertised at the levels used by most consumers. Soap and warm water is plenty good enough to remove 99.9%. Secondly, its only a matter of time before triclosan becomes totally useless as the pathogens become resistant. Third, triclosan breaks down to a dioxin variant and bioaccumulates in the environment. Fourth, these breakdown products as well as the triclosan itself persists and has much negative impact on aquatic ecosystems. Fifth, soap residue builds up at the house and can actually covert the triclosan within it to chloroform so that chloroform vapors (though in low amounts) seep into ones home. Sixth, allegries are on the rise and a credible school of though contributes this to society raising kids which are too clean, seriously. In order to develop properly our immune systems need early on to be exposed to germs! Thankfully, there are still many good triclosan free products out there. Antimicrobials should be left in hospitals and at the discretion of healthcare professionals.