Triclosan
TRICLOSAN is a common ingredient in “antibacterial” soaps. It is also found in acne treatments, face and body washes, toothpaste and deodorants. It is used to kill bacteria on the skin and other surfaces. A scientific advisory panel to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that "antibacterial" soaps were no better than regular soap and water at killing germs or reducing the spread of infection. Furthermore, The American Medical Association reported that use of triclosan in the home may actually encourage bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
Studies report that Triclosan may disrupt the function of the thyroid which is important for growth and development and it may also disrupt hormones namely androgen and estrogen.
Triclosan accumulates in body fat and builds up in both people and animals over time.
Triclosan can also be found in dishwashing detergent, toys, rubbish bags, bedding, bathmats, footwear and even socks.
Below are articles on Triclosan
Triclosan Under the Microscope
If you’ve ever used a product labeled as antibacterial, chances are you’ve encountered triclosan. Patented in the 1960s as an antimicrobial agent and first used in health care settings, triclosan became ubiquitous in the U.S. as consumers became increasingly germophobic. Companies added triclosan to soaps, bodywashes, deodorants, toothpaste, shaving gel, and cosmetics, as well as products such as dishwashing liquids, laundry detergents, cutting boards, toys, fabrics, shoes, and caulking compounds.
Triclosan became so pervasive, in fact, that one study found triclosan in three-quarters of urine samples from a group of people representative of the U.S. population (Environ. Health Perspect. 2008, DOI: 10.1289/ehp.10768).
Yet controversy about triclosan’s efficacy and safety in the consumer market has dogged the compound from the start. Many scientists question whether triclosan reduces disease enough to be beneficial in the face of concerns about its toxicity. Others are concerned that it may promote drug resistance. As a result, triclosan is currently the focus of several regulatory efforts, not the least of which is a ban on triclosan-containing soaps and cleaning products passed by Minnesota legislators last month.
When medical providers first started using triclosan as a surgical scrub, “it replaced some really scary compounds,” says Bruce D. Hammock, a toxicology professor in the department of entomology at the University of California, Davis. “Triclosan is much less toxic, more effective, and more biodegradable” than hexachlorophene and other common biocides of the time, Hammock says.
But then triclosan made its way out of the operating room and into mass consumer products. In that context, its toxicity profile and environmental lifetime make the cost-benefit analysis murkier. “To me that doesn’t say rush out and ban it,” but careful consideration should be given to whether it’s appropriate for mass use, Hammock says. For washing hands, plain soap and water likely fit most needs.
To a majority of people, the risks of triclosan are probably minimal. In a 2008 safety review, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that there are no adverse effects at doses up to 40 mg/kg body weight. That figure was for long-term dermal exposure, based on a 90-day toxicity study in rats. For chronic dietary exposure, EPA used 30 mg/kg body weight, based on a yearlong study in baboons.
A pump or two of handwash containing less than 0.5% triclosan will yield only a few milligrams of the compound, and most of the material will be rinsed down the drain after a few seconds on the skin. But add in use of multiple personal care and other products, inhalation of contaminated dust, and consumption of residual amounts in water and food—including breast milk for infants—and exposure goes up. Nevertheless, EPA concluded in 2008 that aggregate exposure was within safe limits, based on analysis of urine levels.
But some people may be more susceptible to harm, such as those with genetic variations that reduce their ability to metabolize triclosan, leaving them with higher blood concentrations.
Triclosan can hinder cardiac and skeletal muscle contraction, according to a study in mice and fish by Hammock, UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine professor of molecular biosciences Isaac N. Pessah, and colleagues (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1215071109). The contraction-inhibiting effect occurs at blood plasma concentrations at the high end of those found in people.
Triclosan also appears to disrupt signaling of the endocrine system, affecting the function of estrogens, androgens, and thyroid hormones. The clinical effects of triclosan endocrine disruption are still unclear. Generally, our bodies can detoxify low levels of
triclosan, says Margaret O. James, a professor of medicinal chemistry at the University of Florida. “My concern is during pregnancy when you have a developing fetus in which the hormonal environment is very critical.” In her own work, James has found that triclosan inhibits enzymes that sulfate estradiol and estrone in sheep placentas (Environ. Int. 2010, DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2009.02.004).
In addition to concerns about human toxicity, scientists are also worried that broad use of triclosan will promote antibiotic resistance. When triclosan was first developed, scientists believed its antibacterial activity was nonspecific, perhaps akin to ethanol or isopropanol’s general ability to dehydrate cells and disrupt their membranes and proteins. Bacteria therefore wouldn’t develop resistance to the compound, as they don’t for the alcohols.
Then, in 1998, a group led by Tufts University microbiology professor Stuart B. Levy discovered that triclosan inhibits enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase, a key enzyme in bacterial fatty acid synthesis (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/28970). Blocking the enzyme’s activity results in weakened cell membranes.
Levy and colleagues also found that overexpressing or mutating the gene for the enzyme can prevent triclosan action. Bacteria exposed to triclosan outside of the lab can similarly develop mutations to acquire resistance. Because bacteria also commonly transfer genetic material among themselves, they can share mutated regulatory or enzyme genes that pass on resistance not to just triclosan but possibly also to antibiotics that target the same enzyme.
Bacteria also defeat triclosan by pumping it out of cells. “All bacteria have genes for efflux pumps; some are narrow and some are broad in their targets,” Levy says. Gene mutations that increase production of a broadly effective pump or expand the capacity of a narrow one will also increase resistance to triclosan and antibiotics. Bacteria can share those genes as well.
Field studies of triclosan-resistant microbes show that there’s no more triclosan resistance in households that use products with the compound than there is in households that don’t. It’s unclear whether that is because microbes are not becoming resistant or the compound is so pervasive in the environment that triclosan resistance is universal, Levy says.
As for spread of antibiotic resistance to other compounds, laboratory studies of bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa show evidence of cross-resistance developing for triclosan and erythromycin, amoxicillin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, and trimethoprim (Clin. Infect. Dis. 2007, DOI: 10.1086/519255).
Beyond human toxicity and bacterial drug resistance are the potential effects of triclosan after it is washed down the drain. About half of the triclosan in wastewater survives treatment, according to work led by Rolf U. Halden, a professor of civil, environmental, and sustainable engineering at Arizona State University (Chemosphere 2007, DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.04.066). Of the triclosan detected after treatment, about 4% is discharged with water and 96% sits in sewage sludge.
Although the percentage of triclosan that makes it through to be discharged in water is small, aggregate use adds up. A U.S. Geological Survey study found that triclosan was one of the top five organic wastewater contaminants in stream water samples taken from 30 states in 1999–2000 (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, DOI: 10.1021/es011055j). The researchers found triclosan in nearly 60% of samples at concentrations ranging from 0.05 µg/L—the limit of detection—up to 2.3 µg/L.
What those levels mean for aquatic organisms is unclear. EPA in its 2008 assessment determined that about 270 µg/L will kill 50% of freshwater fish in 96 hours, and about 400 µg/L will kill 50% of freshwater invertebrates in 96 hours. Both values qualify triclosan as highly toxic to aquatic organisms. In the UC Davis muscle studies, the researchers found that concentrations of 150 µg/L impaired swimming of fathead minnows.
For freshwater aquatic plants, EPA noted that triclosan inhibited 50% of plant growth at 16 µg/L for freshwater diatoms, 1.2 µg/L for cyanobacteria, and as low as 0.7 µg/L for green algae.
Downstream from wastewater treatment plants, triclosan also gets deposited from water into sediments. A study of sediment cores in Lake Pepin, downstream from Minneapolis and St. Paul on the Mississippi River, showed triclosan first appearing in the 1950s and increasing to more than 10 ng/g dry sediment by the 1980s (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, DOI: 10.1021/es1001105). The research team, which was led by University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, chemical engineering professor William A. Arnold and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, environmental chemistry professor Kristopher McNeill, also observed chlorinated triclosan derivatives from water treatment and dioxin derivatives from photoreactions. Although dioxins are generally considered to be highly toxic persistent environmental pollutants, toxicity of the triclosan derivatives has not been evaluated.
Although the concentrations of triclosan in water and sediments are less than acutely toxic concentrations, chronic, low-level exposure for multiple generations may still cause ecosystem problems by interfering with species low on the food chain. Triclosan may also accumulate in fatty tissue in fish, ultimately causing harmful effects through endocrine disruption or other mechanisms. Researchers are calling for additional studies on the effects of triclosan on aquatic ecosystems, especially since it does not biodegrade easily. “The more long-lived a chemical is, the more opportunity it has to move around the ecosystem and find a place it can do harm,” Halden says.
There’s also the triclosan that adheres to sewage sludge. The compound survives as the sludge is converted into biosolids that are applied as fertilizer. In this environment, triclosan poses potential concerns for the microbial communities that cycle nutrients, as well as toxicity to organisms such as earthworms and plants. Triclosan may also migrate through the soil.
So far, such concerns seem minor. In one study of the effects of triclosan on microbial communities in agricultural soil, most changes appeared to be more due to the addition of biosolids or passage of time than to triclosan (Water Environ. Res. 2013, DOI: 10.2175/106143012x13560205144335). And although triclosan-contaminated fertilizer does interfere with nitrogen cycling, the benefit of the fertilizer outweighs the triclosan effect, says Thomas M. Young, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis.
Other studies indicate that the amount of triclosan in biosolids is not toxic to either earthworms or plants and that plant uptake and bioaccumulation are “minimal” (Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012, DOI: 10.1002/etc.1721 and 10.1002/etc.1930). Another study also found minimal uptake into plants but that triclosan persisted in and migrated through soil (J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2014, DOI: 10.1111/jawr.12163). As in the aquatic environment, more study would be helpful to enable researchers to fully understand triclosan’s fate and toxicity.
Looming over all the concerns about human and environmental toxicity of triclosan is one question: Does it provide a health benefit to those who use it?
Triclosan does kill bacteria. In one recent study, washing hands with a product containing 0.46% triclosan reduced Shigella flexneri bacterial counts by about an order of magnitude more than washing with a nonantibacterial product (J. Food Prot. 2014, DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-13-366). Washing with a triclosan-containing product also reduced the number of bacteria subsequently transferred to melon balls. An earlier review of studies comparing antimicrobial and nonantimicrobial soaps indicated that antimicrobial soap worked about five times better to reduce bacterial counts than nonantimicrobial soaps (J. Food. Prot. 2011, DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-11-122).
But reducing bacterial counts is not the same thing as demonstrating clinical benefit. Colgate-Palmolive successfully did that for 0.3% triclosan in toothpaste, which the Food & Drug Administration approved in 1997 for the prevention of cavities, plaque, and gum inflammation, all of which are caused by bacteria. In new proposed regulations for consumer antibacterial washes published in December 2013, however, FDA identified only two clinical studies of antiseptic handwashes (Lancet 2005, DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66912-7 and Ann. Intern. Med. 2004, DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-5-200403020-00007). Both concluded that triclosan failed to reduce infections.
The lack of clinical benefit leaves some scientists thinking triclosan is overused. “With many of the chemicals I look at, I find it difficult to make a decision about what we should do about them, because there are risks and there are benefits,” Young says. But for triclosan, “it seems like we’re putting chemicals in stuff just for the point of putting chemicals in stuff.”
Others disagree. If antimicrobial-containing products are useful in areas such as food production or medical clinics, then people should be able to choose to have them in their homes, argues Richard Sedlak, executive vice president of technical and international affairs at the industry trade group the American Cleaning Institute.
What will happen to triclosan-containing consumer products is an open question. A few states are considering following Minnesota’s lead. At the federal level, EPA is again reviewing the compound’s safety profile in plastics and other non-personal-care products. FDA is reviewing comments on its proposed regulations, which would require that consumer personal care products show a clinical benefit such as reduced infections.
One concern about the regulations is the time frame. Companies only have until December to submit safety and efficacy data, but high-quality population studies typically take years to plan and execute, Sedlak says. Meanwhile, companies such as Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble have already chosen to start removing triclosan from their products.
Whatever transpires, Halden hopes that we won’t again just replace one problematic chemical with another. Pointing to triclosan in personal care products, polychlorinated biphenyls in coolants, and polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants used in furnishings, Halden says product developers need to think harder about toxicity and biodegradability from the start. He adds, “How often can we make the same mistake before we learn our lesson?”
Source : Chemical and Engineering News
Link to Source
Common toothpaste additive triclosan to be deemed toxic to environment
The federal government is set to declare a bacteria killer found in many toothpastes, mouthwashes and anti-bacterial soaps as toxic to the environment, a move which could see the use of the chemical curtailed sharply, Postmedia News has learned.Health Canada has been probing the effects of triclosan on the body's endocrine system and whether the antibacterial agent contributes to the development of antibiotic resistance. Environment Canada has been studying the effect of the widely used chemical on the environment.
The government's draft risk assessment is now complete and it says triclosan is toxic to the environment but there's not enough evidence to say it's hazardous to human health. The formal proposal to list the chemical as toxic to the environment will be published Friday.
A toxic designation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act triggers a process to find ways to curtail a chemical's use, including a possible ban in a range of personal-care products.
Canada's proposed toxic designation comes as other regulators wrestle with what to do with triclosan.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration already has said existing data raise "valid concerns" about the possible health effects of repetitive daily exposure to triclosan and is expected is unveil its own risk assessment next winter. Currently, the American regulator's position is triclosan "is not known to be hazardous to humans" but "animal studies have shown that triclosan alters hormone regulation" and that it warrants further review.
The Canadian government reviewed the safety of triclosan under the government's Chemicals Management Plan (CMP).
The plan, first announced in 2006 with a startup budget of $300 million, initially identified 200 "high-priority" chemicals to undergo safety assessments over five years. When chemicals are deemed to be toxic to human health or the environment under this program, the government then outlines risk-management steps to be taken to protect people or the environment.
During the first phase of the plan, the federal government banned bisphenol A in baby bottles — an international first that began with listing the hormone-disrupting chemical as toxic to human health. Major companies have since announced they are phasing out the use of BPA in canned foods.
The Canadian Medical Association has been calling for a ban on the household use of triclosan since 2009, when the organization raised serious concerns about the potential for increased bacterial resistance and argued the benefits are minimal compared to regular washing with soap.
Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence and co-author of the book Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects our Health, said he wasn't aware of the government's decision on what he calls "modern-day snake oil."
But "like the Canadian Medical Association, we've been concerned about the environmental and human health impacts of triclosan for a while, so we would very much welcome some regulatory action by the Canadian government," Smith said Monday.
Smith, who also said "there's evidence that triclosan is a thyroid toxin," added there's "now a mountain of scientific evidence that triclosan is doing nasty things to aquatic organisms. Because so much of it is being used in our kitchens and bathrooms, it's going down the drain and winding up in lakes and rivers at increasing levels."
Darren Praznik, president of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, said it would be premature to comment on the government decision until "we actually know what it says," but he said his group is "very supportive" of the Chemicals Management Plan.
"What we like about it, generally speaking, is at the end of the day, it really is about the application of sound science and risk assessment to substances. And I think it also adds another level of safety, rather than just product reviews but also substance reviews," said Praznik.
The CMP reviewed another a funding boost last fall when Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq and Environment Minister Peter Kent announced the program's renewal with more than $500 million over five years.
At the time, the government said it would be looking at phthalates, flame retardants, boron, selenium, cobalt and other chemicals in the second phase, as well as finalizing its risk assessment of triclosan.
Smith and co-author Bruce Lourie took aim at triclosan for their book, published in 2009.
Smith, who banished triclosan from his home years ago after reading studies identifying the antibacterial agent as a possible endocrine disrupter, saw the levels rise in his body by 2,900 times after using, over a two-day period, brand-name deodorant, toothpaste, anti-bacterial soap and shaving cream containing triclosan.
Source : Edmonton Journal Canada
Link to Source
Beyond Pesticides recently report :
Triclosan, one of the most prevalent antibacterial compounds found in products, is the focus of a campaign undertaken by a coalition of health and environmental groups led by Beyond Pesticides and Food & Water Watch, aimed at removing triclosan from the market. Studies have increasingly linked triclosan (and its chemical cousin triclocarban), to a range of adverse health and environmental effects, from skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial, endocrine disruption and compounded antibiotic resistant, tainted water, and dioxin contamination to destruction of fragile aquatic ecosystems. When introduced to the market in 1972, triclosan was confined to hospital and health care settings. Since then triclosan has exploded onto the market place in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products. Triclosan’s impact on the consumer market has been aided by the false public perception that antibacterial products are best to protect and safeguard against potential harmful bacteria. However, an article in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, entitled "Consumer Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky?" (2007), concludes that antibacterial soaps show no health benefits over plain soaps. This follows a recommendation by the FDA Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee on October 20, 2005 in a statement that antibacterial soaps and washes are no more effective than regular soap and water in fighting infections.
Research into triclosan’s health and environmental impacts is only just underway, despite its widespread consumer use. Studies have found that it persists in the environment, contributes to the increasing rates of bacterial resistance, has endocrine disrupting properties and causes adverse health problems in humans and wildlife species.
Beyond Pesticidesalso have a list of some of the common products that contain pesticides -
Products Containing Triclosan
Below is a small sampling of the thousands of products containing triclosan and is not to be considered a complete list. Not only are new products introduced every day, but a product's formula may change without notice.
Remember to always refer to product labels to determine whether triclosan is contained in your product. Depending on the company that sells the chemical, triclosan can also appear in products branded Microban®, Irgasan® (DP 300 or PG 60), or on products labeled "built-in antimicrobial protection." Some antibacterial soaps use triclosan's cousin, triclocarban in place of triclosan.
Soap: Dial® Liquid handsoap and bodywash; Softsoap® Antibacterial Liquid Hand Soap; Tea Tree Therapy™ Liquid Soap; Clearasil® Daily Face Wash; Dermalogica® Skin Purifying Wipes; Clean & Clear Foaming Facial Cleanser; DermaKleen™ Antibacterial Lotion Soap; CVS Antibacterial Soap, Ajax Antibacterial Dishsoap, Ultra Concentrated Dawn Antibacterial Dishsoap, Kimcare Antibacterial Clear Soap, Bath and Body Works Antibacterial Hand Soaps, Gels and Foaming Sanitizers.
Dental Care: Colgate Total®; Breeze™ Daily Mouthwash; Reach® Antibacterial Toothbrush
Cosmetics: Garden Botanika® Powder Foundation; Mavala Lip Base; Movate® Skin Litening Cream HQ; Paul Mitchell Detangler Comb, Revlon ColorStay LipSHINE Lipcolor Plus Gloss, Babor Volume Mascara, Phytomer Perfect Visage Gentle Cleansing Milk, Phytomer Hydracontinue Instant Moisture Cream, Bath and Body Works Antibacterial Moisturizing Lotions.
Deodorant: Queen Helene® Tea Trea Oil Deodorant and Aloe Deodorant; DeCleor Deodorant Stick; Epoch® Deodorant with Citrisomes.
Other Personal Care Products: Murad Acne Complex® Kit, ®; Diabet-x™ Cream; Scunci Microban Comb, Sportslick Pocket Slick.
First Aid: SyDERMA® Skin Protectant plus First Aid Antiseptic; Solarcaine® First Aid Medicated Spray; Nexcare™ First Aid, Skin Crack Care; 11-1X1: Universal Cervical Collar with Microban, Brave Soldier Antiseptic Healing Ointment.
Kitchenware: Farberware® Microban Cutting Boards; Franklin Machine Products FMP Ice Cream Scoop SZ 20 Microban; Hobart Semi-Automatic Slicer; Chix® Food Service Wipes with Microban; Compact Web Foot® Wet Mop Heads.
Computer Equipment: Fellowes Cordless Microban Keyboard and Microban Mouse Pad.
Clothes: Biofresh® socks.
Children's Toys: Playskool®: Stack 'n Scoop Whale, Rockin' Radio, Hourglass, Sounds Around Driver, Roll 'n Rattle Ball, Animal Sounds Phone, Busy Beads Pal, Pop 'n Spin Top, Lights 'n Surprise Laptop.
Other: Ticonderoga® Antibacterial pencil, Bionare® Cool Mist Humidifier; Deciguard AB Ear Plugs; Bauer® hockey helmets; Miller Paint Interior Paint; Holmes Foot Buddy™ Foot Warmer, Blue Mountain Wall Coverings, California Paints®, EHC AMRail Escalator Handrails, Dupont™ Air Filters, J Cloth® towels, select Quicke cleaning products, BioEars earplugs, Petmate® LeBistro feeders and waterers, Infantino cart covers and baby carriers, Oreck XL®, Bissell Healthy Home Vacuum™, NuTone® Central Vacuum systems, Rival® Seal-A-Meal® Vacuum Food Sealer, CleenFreek SportsHygiene Yoga Mat.
Beyond Pesticides - Link to their Petition Site - "Triclosan, Sign the Pledge"
Mother Jones has a very interesting article :
Is the Soap Lobby Right That Antibacterials Are Safe?
By now, you've probably heard of triclosan, an antimicrobial agent present in all kinds of personal hygiene products, from soap to deodorant to toothpaste. The New York Times recently reported on the raging debate between public health advocates and the soap industry over the product's safety.
If you're waiting for the FDA to weigh in with a final verdict on triclosan, don't hold your breath: The agency has been dragging its feet on the subject for 37 years. In 2010, it finally promised to release the results of its scientific review of triclosan by spring 2011. But spring came and went with no word, and as NRDC attorney Mae Wu noted on her blog, the agency quietly extended its own deadline to winter 2012 on its website, without publicly announcing the delay. When I asked FDA spokeswoman Shelly Burgess about the silence on the delay, she told me, simply, "FDA doesn't normally make public announcements on the status of its rulemakings." So why'd you promise spring 2011 in the first place?
But far be it from the soap industry to sit idly by while the FDA deliberates. In April, the trade group American Cleaning Institute launched Fight Germs Now, a site that claims to be "the official source on antibacterial hygiene products." Fight Germs Now's FAQ assures consumers that despite the rumors they may have heard, triclosan and other antibacterial agents are safe, effective, and completely necessary in the fight against germs.
I was curious as to whether the ACI's claims could withstand scientific scrutiny, so I checked in with Wu and her colleague Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the NRDC. They handily debunked a few of the major points that Fight Germs Now tries to make:
1. "Sometimes plain soap and water is not good enough."
Actually, says Jannsen, there's plenty of evidence that triclosan is no more effective than soap and water: See this study and this review of several studies for starters. (The one exception is toothpaste; there's some evidence that triclosan helps fight gingivitis.) Fight Germs Now likes to tout a study from 2007 that found that people who washed their hands with triclosan carried less bacteria onto their food than those who used soap and water, but Jannsen points out that before you buy this line, you might want to consider the fact that the study was performed by Henkel, makers of Dial antimicrobial soap.
2. "Triclosan does not accumulate in food-chains because it is excreted by animals and man by their metabolism."
While it's true that we do excrete triclosan, that doesn't mean it disappears from the environment. A 2008 study found that earthworms take up triclosan from the soil, showing that organisms "can be contaminated with these chemicals and raising concerns that this will make its way up the food chain," says Jannsen. More worrisome, a 2010 study found that soy beans grown in greenhouses also absorb triclosan from the soil, which, considering the vast amounts of soy that we feed livestock, has major implications for our food supply.
3. "Credible scientific data indicates that triclosan does not disrupt hormonal activity."
Au contraire, say Jannsen and Wu. There's mounting evidence that triclosan and its close relative triclocarban do interfere with our thyroid hormone and sex hormones in both females and males. This 2008 study showed that triclosan disrupted puberty in rats, and this one found that male rats' sex organs got bigger when triclocarban was added to their food. Industry likes to claim that rats and people aren't comparable, but " the hormone systems in lab animals are actually extremely similar to our hormone systems," says Jannsen.
4. "Insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that the use of antiseptic drug products harms human health."
A number of recent studies have shown that antibacterial products might be contributing to antibiotic resistance (here are a few to start with). Then there's the fact that triclosan is known to be completely ineffective against "gram neBgative" bacteria like Pseudomonas and Serratia, both of which cause major infections in hospitals. In fact, notes Jannsen, a hospital outbreak of Serratia was traced back to antibacterial soap dispensers
Sources
Mother Jones
Beyond Pesticides
Studies report that Triclosan may disrupt the function of the thyroid which is important for growth and development and it may also disrupt hormones namely androgen and estrogen.
Triclosan accumulates in body fat and builds up in both people and animals over time.
Triclosan can also be found in dishwashing detergent, toys, rubbish bags, bedding, bathmats, footwear and even socks.
Below are articles on Triclosan
Triclosan Under the Microscope
If you’ve ever used a product labeled as antibacterial, chances are you’ve encountered triclosan. Patented in the 1960s as an antimicrobial agent and first used in health care settings, triclosan became ubiquitous in the U.S. as consumers became increasingly germophobic. Companies added triclosan to soaps, bodywashes, deodorants, toothpaste, shaving gel, and cosmetics, as well as products such as dishwashing liquids, laundry detergents, cutting boards, toys, fabrics, shoes, and caulking compounds.
Triclosan became so pervasive, in fact, that one study found triclosan in three-quarters of urine samples from a group of people representative of the U.S. population (Environ. Health Perspect. 2008, DOI: 10.1289/ehp.10768).
Yet controversy about triclosan’s efficacy and safety in the consumer market has dogged the compound from the start. Many scientists question whether triclosan reduces disease enough to be beneficial in the face of concerns about its toxicity. Others are concerned that it may promote drug resistance. As a result, triclosan is currently the focus of several regulatory efforts, not the least of which is a ban on triclosan-containing soaps and cleaning products passed by Minnesota legislators last month.
When medical providers first started using triclosan as a surgical scrub, “it replaced some really scary compounds,” says Bruce D. Hammock, a toxicology professor in the department of entomology at the University of California, Davis. “Triclosan is much less toxic, more effective, and more biodegradable” than hexachlorophene and other common biocides of the time, Hammock says.
But then triclosan made its way out of the operating room and into mass consumer products. In that context, its toxicity profile and environmental lifetime make the cost-benefit analysis murkier. “To me that doesn’t say rush out and ban it,” but careful consideration should be given to whether it’s appropriate for mass use, Hammock says. For washing hands, plain soap and water likely fit most needs.
To a majority of people, the risks of triclosan are probably minimal. In a 2008 safety review, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that there are no adverse effects at doses up to 40 mg/kg body weight. That figure was for long-term dermal exposure, based on a 90-day toxicity study in rats. For chronic dietary exposure, EPA used 30 mg/kg body weight, based on a yearlong study in baboons.
A pump or two of handwash containing less than 0.5% triclosan will yield only a few milligrams of the compound, and most of the material will be rinsed down the drain after a few seconds on the skin. But add in use of multiple personal care and other products, inhalation of contaminated dust, and consumption of residual amounts in water and food—including breast milk for infants—and exposure goes up. Nevertheless, EPA concluded in 2008 that aggregate exposure was within safe limits, based on analysis of urine levels.
But some people may be more susceptible to harm, such as those with genetic variations that reduce their ability to metabolize triclosan, leaving them with higher blood concentrations.
Triclosan can hinder cardiac and skeletal muscle contraction, according to a study in mice and fish by Hammock, UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine professor of molecular biosciences Isaac N. Pessah, and colleagues (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1215071109). The contraction-inhibiting effect occurs at blood plasma concentrations at the high end of those found in people.
Triclosan also appears to disrupt signaling of the endocrine system, affecting the function of estrogens, androgens, and thyroid hormones. The clinical effects of triclosan endocrine disruption are still unclear. Generally, our bodies can detoxify low levels of
triclosan, says Margaret O. James, a professor of medicinal chemistry at the University of Florida. “My concern is during pregnancy when you have a developing fetus in which the hormonal environment is very critical.” In her own work, James has found that triclosan inhibits enzymes that sulfate estradiol and estrone in sheep placentas (Environ. Int. 2010, DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2009.02.004).
In addition to concerns about human toxicity, scientists are also worried that broad use of triclosan will promote antibiotic resistance. When triclosan was first developed, scientists believed its antibacterial activity was nonspecific, perhaps akin to ethanol or isopropanol’s general ability to dehydrate cells and disrupt their membranes and proteins. Bacteria therefore wouldn’t develop resistance to the compound, as they don’t for the alcohols.
Then, in 1998, a group led by Tufts University microbiology professor Stuart B. Levy discovered that triclosan inhibits enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase, a key enzyme in bacterial fatty acid synthesis (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/28970). Blocking the enzyme’s activity results in weakened cell membranes.
Levy and colleagues also found that overexpressing or mutating the gene for the enzyme can prevent triclosan action. Bacteria exposed to triclosan outside of the lab can similarly develop mutations to acquire resistance. Because bacteria also commonly transfer genetic material among themselves, they can share mutated regulatory or enzyme genes that pass on resistance not to just triclosan but possibly also to antibiotics that target the same enzyme.
Bacteria also defeat triclosan by pumping it out of cells. “All bacteria have genes for efflux pumps; some are narrow and some are broad in their targets,” Levy says. Gene mutations that increase production of a broadly effective pump or expand the capacity of a narrow one will also increase resistance to triclosan and antibiotics. Bacteria can share those genes as well.
Field studies of triclosan-resistant microbes show that there’s no more triclosan resistance in households that use products with the compound than there is in households that don’t. It’s unclear whether that is because microbes are not becoming resistant or the compound is so pervasive in the environment that triclosan resistance is universal, Levy says.
As for spread of antibiotic resistance to other compounds, laboratory studies of bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa show evidence of cross-resistance developing for triclosan and erythromycin, amoxicillin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, and trimethoprim (Clin. Infect. Dis. 2007, DOI: 10.1086/519255).
Beyond human toxicity and bacterial drug resistance are the potential effects of triclosan after it is washed down the drain. About half of the triclosan in wastewater survives treatment, according to work led by Rolf U. Halden, a professor of civil, environmental, and sustainable engineering at Arizona State University (Chemosphere 2007, DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.04.066). Of the triclosan detected after treatment, about 4% is discharged with water and 96% sits in sewage sludge.
Although the percentage of triclosan that makes it through to be discharged in water is small, aggregate use adds up. A U.S. Geological Survey study found that triclosan was one of the top five organic wastewater contaminants in stream water samples taken from 30 states in 1999–2000 (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, DOI: 10.1021/es011055j). The researchers found triclosan in nearly 60% of samples at concentrations ranging from 0.05 µg/L—the limit of detection—up to 2.3 µg/L.
What those levels mean for aquatic organisms is unclear. EPA in its 2008 assessment determined that about 270 µg/L will kill 50% of freshwater fish in 96 hours, and about 400 µg/L will kill 50% of freshwater invertebrates in 96 hours. Both values qualify triclosan as highly toxic to aquatic organisms. In the UC Davis muscle studies, the researchers found that concentrations of 150 µg/L impaired swimming of fathead minnows.
For freshwater aquatic plants, EPA noted that triclosan inhibited 50% of plant growth at 16 µg/L for freshwater diatoms, 1.2 µg/L for cyanobacteria, and as low as 0.7 µg/L for green algae.
Downstream from wastewater treatment plants, triclosan also gets deposited from water into sediments. A study of sediment cores in Lake Pepin, downstream from Minneapolis and St. Paul on the Mississippi River, showed triclosan first appearing in the 1950s and increasing to more than 10 ng/g dry sediment by the 1980s (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, DOI: 10.1021/es1001105). The research team, which was led by University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, chemical engineering professor William A. Arnold and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, environmental chemistry professor Kristopher McNeill, also observed chlorinated triclosan derivatives from water treatment and dioxin derivatives from photoreactions. Although dioxins are generally considered to be highly toxic persistent environmental pollutants, toxicity of the triclosan derivatives has not been evaluated.
Although the concentrations of triclosan in water and sediments are less than acutely toxic concentrations, chronic, low-level exposure for multiple generations may still cause ecosystem problems by interfering with species low on the food chain. Triclosan may also accumulate in fatty tissue in fish, ultimately causing harmful effects through endocrine disruption or other mechanisms. Researchers are calling for additional studies on the effects of triclosan on aquatic ecosystems, especially since it does not biodegrade easily. “The more long-lived a chemical is, the more opportunity it has to move around the ecosystem and find a place it can do harm,” Halden says.
There’s also the triclosan that adheres to sewage sludge. The compound survives as the sludge is converted into biosolids that are applied as fertilizer. In this environment, triclosan poses potential concerns for the microbial communities that cycle nutrients, as well as toxicity to organisms such as earthworms and plants. Triclosan may also migrate through the soil.
So far, such concerns seem minor. In one study of the effects of triclosan on microbial communities in agricultural soil, most changes appeared to be more due to the addition of biosolids or passage of time than to triclosan (Water Environ. Res. 2013, DOI: 10.2175/106143012x13560205144335). And although triclosan-contaminated fertilizer does interfere with nitrogen cycling, the benefit of the fertilizer outweighs the triclosan effect, says Thomas M. Young, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis.
Other studies indicate that the amount of triclosan in biosolids is not toxic to either earthworms or plants and that plant uptake and bioaccumulation are “minimal” (Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012, DOI: 10.1002/etc.1721 and 10.1002/etc.1930). Another study also found minimal uptake into plants but that triclosan persisted in and migrated through soil (J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2014, DOI: 10.1111/jawr.12163). As in the aquatic environment, more study would be helpful to enable researchers to fully understand triclosan’s fate and toxicity.
Looming over all the concerns about human and environmental toxicity of triclosan is one question: Does it provide a health benefit to those who use it?
Triclosan does kill bacteria. In one recent study, washing hands with a product containing 0.46% triclosan reduced Shigella flexneri bacterial counts by about an order of magnitude more than washing with a nonantibacterial product (J. Food Prot. 2014, DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-13-366). Washing with a triclosan-containing product also reduced the number of bacteria subsequently transferred to melon balls. An earlier review of studies comparing antimicrobial and nonantimicrobial soaps indicated that antimicrobial soap worked about five times better to reduce bacterial counts than nonantimicrobial soaps (J. Food. Prot. 2011, DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-11-122).
But reducing bacterial counts is not the same thing as demonstrating clinical benefit. Colgate-Palmolive successfully did that for 0.3% triclosan in toothpaste, which the Food & Drug Administration approved in 1997 for the prevention of cavities, plaque, and gum inflammation, all of which are caused by bacteria. In new proposed regulations for consumer antibacterial washes published in December 2013, however, FDA identified only two clinical studies of antiseptic handwashes (Lancet 2005, DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66912-7 and Ann. Intern. Med. 2004, DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-5-200403020-00007). Both concluded that triclosan failed to reduce infections.
The lack of clinical benefit leaves some scientists thinking triclosan is overused. “With many of the chemicals I look at, I find it difficult to make a decision about what we should do about them, because there are risks and there are benefits,” Young says. But for triclosan, “it seems like we’re putting chemicals in stuff just for the point of putting chemicals in stuff.”
Others disagree. If antimicrobial-containing products are useful in areas such as food production or medical clinics, then people should be able to choose to have them in their homes, argues Richard Sedlak, executive vice president of technical and international affairs at the industry trade group the American Cleaning Institute.
What will happen to triclosan-containing consumer products is an open question. A few states are considering following Minnesota’s lead. At the federal level, EPA is again reviewing the compound’s safety profile in plastics and other non-personal-care products. FDA is reviewing comments on its proposed regulations, which would require that consumer personal care products show a clinical benefit such as reduced infections.
One concern about the regulations is the time frame. Companies only have until December to submit safety and efficacy data, but high-quality population studies typically take years to plan and execute, Sedlak says. Meanwhile, companies such as Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble have already chosen to start removing triclosan from their products.
Whatever transpires, Halden hopes that we won’t again just replace one problematic chemical with another. Pointing to triclosan in personal care products, polychlorinated biphenyls in coolants, and polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants used in furnishings, Halden says product developers need to think harder about toxicity and biodegradability from the start. He adds, “How often can we make the same mistake before we learn our lesson?”
Source : Chemical and Engineering News
Link to Source
Common toothpaste additive triclosan to be deemed toxic to environment
The federal government is set to declare a bacteria killer found in many toothpastes, mouthwashes and anti-bacterial soaps as toxic to the environment, a move which could see the use of the chemical curtailed sharply, Postmedia News has learned.Health Canada has been probing the effects of triclosan on the body's endocrine system and whether the antibacterial agent contributes to the development of antibiotic resistance. Environment Canada has been studying the effect of the widely used chemical on the environment.
The government's draft risk assessment is now complete and it says triclosan is toxic to the environment but there's not enough evidence to say it's hazardous to human health. The formal proposal to list the chemical as toxic to the environment will be published Friday.
A toxic designation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act triggers a process to find ways to curtail a chemical's use, including a possible ban in a range of personal-care products.
Canada's proposed toxic designation comes as other regulators wrestle with what to do with triclosan.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration already has said existing data raise "valid concerns" about the possible health effects of repetitive daily exposure to triclosan and is expected is unveil its own risk assessment next winter. Currently, the American regulator's position is triclosan "is not known to be hazardous to humans" but "animal studies have shown that triclosan alters hormone regulation" and that it warrants further review.
The Canadian government reviewed the safety of triclosan under the government's Chemicals Management Plan (CMP).
The plan, first announced in 2006 with a startup budget of $300 million, initially identified 200 "high-priority" chemicals to undergo safety assessments over five years. When chemicals are deemed to be toxic to human health or the environment under this program, the government then outlines risk-management steps to be taken to protect people or the environment.
During the first phase of the plan, the federal government banned bisphenol A in baby bottles — an international first that began with listing the hormone-disrupting chemical as toxic to human health. Major companies have since announced they are phasing out the use of BPA in canned foods.
The Canadian Medical Association has been calling for a ban on the household use of triclosan since 2009, when the organization raised serious concerns about the potential for increased bacterial resistance and argued the benefits are minimal compared to regular washing with soap.
Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence and co-author of the book Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects our Health, said he wasn't aware of the government's decision on what he calls "modern-day snake oil."
But "like the Canadian Medical Association, we've been concerned about the environmental and human health impacts of triclosan for a while, so we would very much welcome some regulatory action by the Canadian government," Smith said Monday.
Smith, who also said "there's evidence that triclosan is a thyroid toxin," added there's "now a mountain of scientific evidence that triclosan is doing nasty things to aquatic organisms. Because so much of it is being used in our kitchens and bathrooms, it's going down the drain and winding up in lakes and rivers at increasing levels."
Darren Praznik, president of the Canadian Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, said it would be premature to comment on the government decision until "we actually know what it says," but he said his group is "very supportive" of the Chemicals Management Plan.
"What we like about it, generally speaking, is at the end of the day, it really is about the application of sound science and risk assessment to substances. And I think it also adds another level of safety, rather than just product reviews but also substance reviews," said Praznik.
The CMP reviewed another a funding boost last fall when Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq and Environment Minister Peter Kent announced the program's renewal with more than $500 million over five years.
At the time, the government said it would be looking at phthalates, flame retardants, boron, selenium, cobalt and other chemicals in the second phase, as well as finalizing its risk assessment of triclosan.
Smith and co-author Bruce Lourie took aim at triclosan for their book, published in 2009.
Smith, who banished triclosan from his home years ago after reading studies identifying the antibacterial agent as a possible endocrine disrupter, saw the levels rise in his body by 2,900 times after using, over a two-day period, brand-name deodorant, toothpaste, anti-bacterial soap and shaving cream containing triclosan.
Source : Edmonton Journal Canada
Link to Source
Beyond Pesticides recently report :
Triclosan, one of the most prevalent antibacterial compounds found in products, is the focus of a campaign undertaken by a coalition of health and environmental groups led by Beyond Pesticides and Food & Water Watch, aimed at removing triclosan from the market. Studies have increasingly linked triclosan (and its chemical cousin triclocarban), to a range of adverse health and environmental effects, from skin irritation, allergy susceptibility, bacterial, endocrine disruption and compounded antibiotic resistant, tainted water, and dioxin contamination to destruction of fragile aquatic ecosystems. When introduced to the market in 1972, triclosan was confined to hospital and health care settings. Since then triclosan has exploded onto the market place in hundreds of consumer products ranging from antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics, toys, and other household and personal care products. Triclosan’s impact on the consumer market has been aided by the false public perception that antibacterial products are best to protect and safeguard against potential harmful bacteria. However, an article in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, entitled "Consumer Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky?" (2007), concludes that antibacterial soaps show no health benefits over plain soaps. This follows a recommendation by the FDA Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee on October 20, 2005 in a statement that antibacterial soaps and washes are no more effective than regular soap and water in fighting infections.
Research into triclosan’s health and environmental impacts is only just underway, despite its widespread consumer use. Studies have found that it persists in the environment, contributes to the increasing rates of bacterial resistance, has endocrine disrupting properties and causes adverse health problems in humans and wildlife species.
Beyond Pesticidesalso have a list of some of the common products that contain pesticides -
Products Containing Triclosan
Below is a small sampling of the thousands of products containing triclosan and is not to be considered a complete list. Not only are new products introduced every day, but a product's formula may change without notice.
Remember to always refer to product labels to determine whether triclosan is contained in your product. Depending on the company that sells the chemical, triclosan can also appear in products branded Microban®, Irgasan® (DP 300 or PG 60), or on products labeled "built-in antimicrobial protection." Some antibacterial soaps use triclosan's cousin, triclocarban in place of triclosan.
Soap: Dial® Liquid handsoap and bodywash; Softsoap® Antibacterial Liquid Hand Soap; Tea Tree Therapy™ Liquid Soap; Clearasil® Daily Face Wash; Dermalogica® Skin Purifying Wipes; Clean & Clear Foaming Facial Cleanser; DermaKleen™ Antibacterial Lotion Soap; CVS Antibacterial Soap, Ajax Antibacterial Dishsoap, Ultra Concentrated Dawn Antibacterial Dishsoap, Kimcare Antibacterial Clear Soap, Bath and Body Works Antibacterial Hand Soaps, Gels and Foaming Sanitizers.
Dental Care: Colgate Total®; Breeze™ Daily Mouthwash; Reach® Antibacterial Toothbrush
Cosmetics: Garden Botanika® Powder Foundation; Mavala Lip Base; Movate® Skin Litening Cream HQ; Paul Mitchell Detangler Comb, Revlon ColorStay LipSHINE Lipcolor Plus Gloss, Babor Volume Mascara, Phytomer Perfect Visage Gentle Cleansing Milk, Phytomer Hydracontinue Instant Moisture Cream, Bath and Body Works Antibacterial Moisturizing Lotions.
Deodorant: Queen Helene® Tea Trea Oil Deodorant and Aloe Deodorant; DeCleor Deodorant Stick; Epoch® Deodorant with Citrisomes.
Other Personal Care Products: Murad Acne Complex® Kit, ®; Diabet-x™ Cream; Scunci Microban Comb, Sportslick Pocket Slick.
First Aid: SyDERMA® Skin Protectant plus First Aid Antiseptic; Solarcaine® First Aid Medicated Spray; Nexcare™ First Aid, Skin Crack Care; 11-1X1: Universal Cervical Collar with Microban, Brave Soldier Antiseptic Healing Ointment.
Kitchenware: Farberware® Microban Cutting Boards; Franklin Machine Products FMP Ice Cream Scoop SZ 20 Microban; Hobart Semi-Automatic Slicer; Chix® Food Service Wipes with Microban; Compact Web Foot® Wet Mop Heads.
Computer Equipment: Fellowes Cordless Microban Keyboard and Microban Mouse Pad.
Clothes: Biofresh® socks.
Children's Toys: Playskool®: Stack 'n Scoop Whale, Rockin' Radio, Hourglass, Sounds Around Driver, Roll 'n Rattle Ball, Animal Sounds Phone, Busy Beads Pal, Pop 'n Spin Top, Lights 'n Surprise Laptop.
Other: Ticonderoga® Antibacterial pencil, Bionare® Cool Mist Humidifier; Deciguard AB Ear Plugs; Bauer® hockey helmets; Miller Paint Interior Paint; Holmes Foot Buddy™ Foot Warmer, Blue Mountain Wall Coverings, California Paints®, EHC AMRail Escalator Handrails, Dupont™ Air Filters, J Cloth® towels, select Quicke cleaning products, BioEars earplugs, Petmate® LeBistro feeders and waterers, Infantino cart covers and baby carriers, Oreck XL®, Bissell Healthy Home Vacuum™, NuTone® Central Vacuum systems, Rival® Seal-A-Meal® Vacuum Food Sealer, CleenFreek SportsHygiene Yoga Mat.
Beyond Pesticides - Link to their Petition Site - "Triclosan, Sign the Pledge"
Mother Jones has a very interesting article :
Is the Soap Lobby Right That Antibacterials Are Safe?
By now, you've probably heard of triclosan, an antimicrobial agent present in all kinds of personal hygiene products, from soap to deodorant to toothpaste. The New York Times recently reported on the raging debate between public health advocates and the soap industry over the product's safety.
If you're waiting for the FDA to weigh in with a final verdict on triclosan, don't hold your breath: The agency has been dragging its feet on the subject for 37 years. In 2010, it finally promised to release the results of its scientific review of triclosan by spring 2011. But spring came and went with no word, and as NRDC attorney Mae Wu noted on her blog, the agency quietly extended its own deadline to winter 2012 on its website, without publicly announcing the delay. When I asked FDA spokeswoman Shelly Burgess about the silence on the delay, she told me, simply, "FDA doesn't normally make public announcements on the status of its rulemakings." So why'd you promise spring 2011 in the first place?
But far be it from the soap industry to sit idly by while the FDA deliberates. In April, the trade group American Cleaning Institute launched Fight Germs Now, a site that claims to be "the official source on antibacterial hygiene products." Fight Germs Now's FAQ assures consumers that despite the rumors they may have heard, triclosan and other antibacterial agents are safe, effective, and completely necessary in the fight against germs.
I was curious as to whether the ACI's claims could withstand scientific scrutiny, so I checked in with Wu and her colleague Sarah Janssen, a senior scientist at the NRDC. They handily debunked a few of the major points that Fight Germs Now tries to make:
1. "Sometimes plain soap and water is not good enough."
Actually, says Jannsen, there's plenty of evidence that triclosan is no more effective than soap and water: See this study and this review of several studies for starters. (The one exception is toothpaste; there's some evidence that triclosan helps fight gingivitis.) Fight Germs Now likes to tout a study from 2007 that found that people who washed their hands with triclosan carried less bacteria onto their food than those who used soap and water, but Jannsen points out that before you buy this line, you might want to consider the fact that the study was performed by Henkel, makers of Dial antimicrobial soap.
2. "Triclosan does not accumulate in food-chains because it is excreted by animals and man by their metabolism."
While it's true that we do excrete triclosan, that doesn't mean it disappears from the environment. A 2008 study found that earthworms take up triclosan from the soil, showing that organisms "can be contaminated with these chemicals and raising concerns that this will make its way up the food chain," says Jannsen. More worrisome, a 2010 study found that soy beans grown in greenhouses also absorb triclosan from the soil, which, considering the vast amounts of soy that we feed livestock, has major implications for our food supply.
3. "Credible scientific data indicates that triclosan does not disrupt hormonal activity."
Au contraire, say Jannsen and Wu. There's mounting evidence that triclosan and its close relative triclocarban do interfere with our thyroid hormone and sex hormones in both females and males. This 2008 study showed that triclosan disrupted puberty in rats, and this one found that male rats' sex organs got bigger when triclocarban was added to their food. Industry likes to claim that rats and people aren't comparable, but " the hormone systems in lab animals are actually extremely similar to our hormone systems," says Jannsen.
4. "Insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that the use of antiseptic drug products harms human health."
A number of recent studies have shown that antibacterial products might be contributing to antibiotic resistance (here are a few to start with). Then there's the fact that triclosan is known to be completely ineffective against "gram neBgative" bacteria like Pseudomonas and Serratia, both of which cause major infections in hospitals. In fact, notes Jannsen, a hospital outbreak of Serratia was traced back to antibacterial soap dispensers
Sources
Mother Jones
Beyond Pesticides