Alternative Health

Antibacterial Overload?

the triclosan concern

When used in hospitals, health care settings, or for people with weakened immune systems, antibacterial products represent an important sanitary tool, but this may not be the case for daily household use.

The chemicals that antibacterial products use for bacterial killing effect organisms in a manner similar to antibiotics - and just as organisms have evolved resistance to antibiotic compounds, they have begun to develop resistance to antibacterial compounds, too. In fact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that antibacterial soaps are not necessary in everyday use, and washing hands with ordinary soap and warm water is an effective way to ward off infections.

The most suspect compound in this emerging understanding is triclosan.

Resistance Concerns

Laboratory studies with triclosan have found a number of different strains of mutated bacteria that are resistant to it. In fact, E. coli strains that are resistant to triclosan actually have increased growth rates - constant exposure to triclosan causes these resistant strains to tolerate it better, become increasingly hardy, and ever more resistant. Because antibiotic resistance has become an increasingly serious problem worldwide, it’s worth considering that widespread use of triclosan may compound antibiotic resistance.

Health Concerns

Using data gathered by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the massive CDC dataset of interviews and physical exams collected every few years from thousands of Americans, researchers looked for any evidence that triclosan is having an immune-disrupting effect. They found that up to 75 percent of Americans carried some measurable amount of triclosan in their urine, fat tissue and breast milk. And the higher the urine concentration of the chemical, the more likely that person was to have a diagnosis of allergy and hay fever. Here’s why that’s interesting: For more than 20 years, there’s been an evolving concept in immunology known as the “hygiene hypothesis.” The hypothesis was first proposed in 1989 by David P. Strachan as part of an observation that hay fever and eczema, both allergic diseases, were less common in children from larger families, which were presumably exposed to more infectious agents through their siblings, than in children from families with only one child. The newest addition to this theoretical framework suggests that there’s an inadvertent, undetected factor as well: that the pervasive distribution of triclosan, not just in commercial products but in soil and water, might be sterilizing our environments or our own microbiota enough to exert an immune-system effect that could be lifelong. And, now some scientists are telling us that minute amounts of triclosan - amounts found in the majority of America’s streams and rivers - can be enough to disrupt thyroid function in frogs, and perhaps humans. Studies have shown that triclosan alters hormone regulation and has been found to hasten the transformation of tadpoles into adult frogs (Veldhoen 2006). In addtion, there have been a number of recent concerns about triclosan and its link to dioxin. Dioxin can be highly carcinogenic and can cause health problems as severe as weakening of the immune system, decreased fertility, altered sex hormones, miscarriages, birth defects, and cancer (Lores 2005). Triclosan is listed as “could be” and “suspected to be” contaminated with dioxins in the EPA’s draft, “Dioxin Reassessment.” That’s because, in addition to being formed during the manufacturing process, dioxin may also be formed upon incineration of triclosan. Researchers who added triclosan to river water and shined ultraviolet light on the water found that between one and twelve percent of the triclosan was converted to dioxin in the water, leading to fears that sunlight could transform triclosan to dioxin naturally. An even more serious health threat may stem from treatment of triclosan-tainted water at water treatment plants - sunlight could convert chlorinated triclosan into highly toxic forms of dioxin. Overall, the FDA and the EPA have done little to warn consumers of the possible health and environmental effects of triclosan. European countries, by contrast, have taken a much different approach to this chemical. In 2000, the Danish EPA, National Board of Health, National Central Laboratory and the Danish Consumer Information Center issued a joint statement advising consumers against the routine use of antibacterial household and personal hygiene products, stating that their use is unnecessary for domestic use and potentially harmful to the environment as they “are extremely persistent and highly toxic in the marine environment.” Six Finnish public authorities also issued a statement urging consumers to not use certain antibacterial chemicals, stating they are unnecessary and that their growing use increases the risk of spreading antibiotic resistance in microbial populations. The joint statement, also issued in 2000, stated, “Even Finnish hospitals don’t use such chemicals for routine cleaning operations. In households we see more disadvantages than advantages.” That same year, soap and detergent manufacturers in Europe agreed to a ban on any increase in its use over 1998 levels. The following year, German environment minister Jurgen Trittin called on consumers to not use cleaning agents containing antibacterial agents and on industry to stop marketing and advertising the antibacterial qualities of their products, calling their use in households, “superfluous and risky.” He also demanded that industry stop suggesting to consumers that they are “surrounded by enemy germs which they had to fight aggressively.” If this is enough to make you consider antibacterial alternatives, aside from soap and water, there are some essential oils that have antimicrobial properties, such as Australian tea tree oil, grapefruit seed extract, and pine oil.

Triclosan (2,4,4’-trichloro-2’-hydroxy-dipenyl ether) is an antibacterial found in hundreds of household products including hand sanitizers, liquid soaps, bar soaps, toothpaste, acne ointments, deodorant, mouthwash, cutting boards and socks. It is marketed under the trade name Microban® when used in plastics and clothing, and Biofresh® when used in acrylic fibers.

Antibacterial Overload?

the triclosan concern

When used in hospitals, health care settings, or for people with weakened immune systems, antibacterial products represent an important sanitary tool, but this may not be the case for daily household use.

The chemicals that antibacterial products use for bacterial killing effect organisms in a manner similar to antibiotics - and just as organisms have evolved resistance to antibiotic compounds, they have begun to develop resistance to antibacterial compounds, too. In fact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that antibacterial soaps are not necessary in everyday use, and washing hands with ordinary soap and warm water is an effective way to ward off infections.

The most suspect compound in this emerging understanding is triclosan.

Resistance Concerns

Laboratory studies with triclosan have found a number of different strains of mutated bacteria that are resistant to it. In fact, E. coli strains that are resistant to triclosan actually have increased growth rates - constant exposure to triclosan causes these resistant strains to tolerate it better, become increasingly hardy, and ever more resistant. Because antibiotic resistance has become an increasingly serious problem worldwide, it’s worth considering that widespread use of triclosan may compound antibiotic resistance.

Health Concerns

Using data gathered by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the massive CDC dataset of interviews and physical exams collected every few years from thousands of Americans, researchers looked for any evidence that triclosan is having an immune-disrupting effect. They found that up to 75 percent of Americans carried some measurable amount of triclosan in their urine, fat tissue and breast milk. And the higher the urine concentration of the chemical, the more likely that person was to have a diagnosis of allergy and hay fever. Here’s why that’s interesting: For more than 20 years, there’s been an evolving concept in immunology known as the “hygiene hypothesis.” The hypothesis was first proposed in 1989 by David P. Strachan as part of an observation that hay fever and eczema, both allergic diseases, were less common in children from larger families, which were presumably exposed to more infectious agents through their siblings, than in children from families with only one child. The newest addition to this theoretical framework suggests that there’s an inadvertent, undetected factor as well: that the pervasive distribution of triclosan, not just in commercial products but in soil and water, might be sterilizing our environments or our own microbiota enough to exert an immune-system effect that could be lifelong. And, now some scientists are telling us that minute amounts of triclosan - amounts found in the majority of America’s streams and rivers - can be enough to disrupt thyroid function in frogs, and perhaps humans. Studies have shown that triclosan alters hormone regulation and has been found to hasten the transformation of tadpoles into adult frogs (Veldhoen 2006). In addtion, there have been a number of recent concerns about triclosan and its link to dioxin. Dioxin can be highly carcinogenic and can cause health problems as severe as weakening of the immune system, decreased fertility, altered sex hormones, miscarriages, birth defects, and cancer (Lores 2005). Triclosan is listed as “could be” and “suspected to be” contaminated with dioxins in the EPA’s draft, “Dioxin Reassessment.” That’s because, in addition to being formed during the manufacturing process, dioxin may also be formed upon incineration of triclosan. Researchers who added triclosan to river water and shined ultraviolet light on the water found that between one and twelve percent of the triclosan was converted to dioxin in the water, leading to fears that sunlight could transform triclosan to dioxin naturally. An even more serious health threat may stem from treatment of triclosan-tainted water at water treatment plants - sunlight could convert chlorinated triclosan into highly toxic forms of dioxin. Overall, the FDA and the EPA have done little to warn consumers of the possible health and environmental effects of triclosan. European countries, by contrast, have taken a much different approach to this chemical. In 2000, the Danish EPA, National Board of Health, National Central Laboratory and the Danish Consumer Information Center issued a joint statement advising consumers against the routine use of antibacterial household and personal hygiene products, stating that their use is unnecessary for domestic use and potentially harmful to the environment as they “are extremely persistent and highly toxic in the marine environment.” Six Finnish public authorities also issued a statement urging consumers to not use certain antibacterial chemicals, stating they are unnecessary and that their growing use increases the risk of spreading antibiotic resistance in microbial populations. The joint statement, also issued in 2000, stated, “Even Finnish hospitals don’t use such chemicals for routine cleaning operations. In households we see more disadvantages than advantages.” That same year, soap and detergent manufacturers in Europe agreed to a ban on any increase in its use over 1998 levels. The following year, German environment minister Jurgen Trittin called on consumers to not use cleaning agents containing antibacterial agents and on industry to stop marketing and advertising the antibacterial qualities of their products, calling their use in households, “superfluous and risky.” He also demanded that industry stop suggesting to consumers that they are “surrounded by enemy germs which they had to fight aggressively.” If this is enough to make you consider antibacterial alternatives, aside from soap and water, there are some essential oils that have antimicrobial properties, such as Australian tea tree oil, grapefruit seed extract, and pine oil.

Triclosan (2,4,4’-trichloro-2’-hydroxy-dipenyl ether) is an antibacterial found in hundreds of household products including hand sanitizers, liquid soaps, bar soaps, toothpaste, acne ointments, deodorant, mouthwash, cutting boards and socks. It is marketed under the trade name Microban® when used in plastics and clothing, and Biofresh® when used in acrylic fibers.