A Better Way To Clean

Even if you can’t pronounce it, unless you are actively trying to avoid it, you have been buying products contain Triclosan and Triclocarban. Every year Americans buy several billion dollars of products that contain several million pounds of these synthetic antimicrobials. If you look carefully you will find them in a surprising range of products including antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpaste, mouthwash, even dish soap and cutting boards. You won’t have to look far; over 70% of the liquid soaps contain Triclosan. You will have to look carefully since the ingredients are generally listed in very small print, much smaller than the “antibacterial” claim on the front of the package.

The problem with Triclosan and Triclocarban is that they have a very troubling life cycle that begins in the chemical plant where they are created and continues even after the find their way into our groundwater, our tissues, and breast milk. To make matters worse, Triclosan and Triclocarban are readily converted into highly toxic and carcinogenic dioxins that also accumulate in our fatty tissues. If all of this was not enough, a recent study found that Triclosan interferes with thyroid hormone function.

The industry argument is that there is no proof that exposure to these minute amounts of Triclosan, Triclocarban, or even the associated dioxins represents a significant health risk. They point to the volumes of required animal toxicity studies in further support of this position. As far as it goes, this argument is correct or at least it is for Triclosan and Triclocarban. (There is no argument in favor of dioxin at any level.) They conclude that the benefit to consumers from these antibacterial products justifies the minimal risk.

The flaw in this logic is that is expensive and difficult almost to the point of being impossible to prove a connection between illness or disease and a specific toxic exposure. This is made even more complicated since a 2002 CDC study found over 148 industrial chemicals and pesticides in the blood and urine of ordinary Americans. Each of these chemicals is represented by industry lawyers and lobbyists all insisting that there is no risk and even if there was a risk it is not their chemical that is a fault. Once a chemical is widespread in the environment, manufacturers have no incentive to look for problems and it falls to government and public health professionals to investigate any potential health hazard. From a simple liability standpoint, manufacturers cannot concede that their chemicals are at fault, even if they know it to be true. Accordingly, a company could continue to manufacture massive amounts of a potentially toxic chemical indefinitely or until it is proven conclusively that to be unsafe, at which point the damage is already done.

If consumers really washed their hands properly than they probably wouldn’t need antibacterial soaps, but few adults and almost none of our children wash properly. There is reason to believe that for the way that most of us wash, a safe and effective antibacterial soap might indeed offer some health benefit. However, as long as this potential benefit remains unclear, the potential risks from widespread toxic contamination should guide our actions. Triclosan and Triclocarban are not the worst offenders we have encountered but as consumers of these products we must ask the hard questions and begin to take responsibility for our purchases.

If you believe that there is no antimicrobial benefit from using these products that outweighs the potential risk of Triclosan in breast milk and increased exposure to dioxins, than take a stand on Triclosan. Read the label carefully and vote where you shop. Find safer alternatives to Triclosan or stop buying these products entirely.

This entry was posted on Sunday, March 4th, 2007 at 5:38 pm and is filed under A Better Way To Clean, General, Triclosan. 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.