When you have just had a baby, you want to make sure
she has the healthiest possible start in life. So you try to keep
yourself, your baby and your home
as clean as possible. One of the products you might be using is
antibacterial soap. However, there is an increasing amount of evidence that
the use of antibacterial soap in the normal household is unnecessary and
causes far more harm than good, to both human health and the environment.
Since 2000, the American Medical Association (AMA) has
been advising the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to closely monitor
and possibly regulate the home use of antimicrobials. At the AMA annual
meeting in 2000, Myron Genel, chair of the AMA Council on Scientific Affairs
and a Yale University pediatrician, said, “There’s no evidence that they do
any good and there’s reason to suspect that they could contribute to a
problem” by helping to create antibiotic-resistant bacteria. And more
recently, the FDA has announced that it is considering restricting
antibacterial soaps, which its panel of health experts overwhelmingly said
have not been proven any more effective than regular soap in preventing
infections among average consumers. Actions the FDA could take include
changing product labels, restricting marketing claims or pulling the
products off the market altogether.
At issue are antibacterial products that include
chemicals such as triclosan, which is known for its bacteria-fighting
properties. Triclosan is found in 75 percent of liquid soaps and 30 percent
of bar soaps, as well as in toothpastes, acne creams, deodorants and
lotions. It is also incorporated into a wide range of consumer products like
toys, cutting boards, toothbrush handles, hot tubs and athletic clothing.
However, antibiotics kill more than the disease-causing
bacteria to which they are directed. They kill any other susceptible
bacteria. Once the ecosystem is cleared of susceptible bacteria, resistant
bacteria can multiply and dominate the environment due to lack of
competition, resulting in drug-resistant “superbugs”. The phenomenon can be
likened to weeds that have overgrown a lawn where the grass has been
completely destroyed by an overdose of herbicides.
The ubiquity of the antibacterials in soaps “is a
worrying thing,” lead researcher Dr. Eli N. Perencevich of Beth Israel
Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts, told the media at a
meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America in New Orleans in
2000. He said at the level of usage of antibacterial soap in the typical
home, bacteria could easily develop that would be resistant to both
antibiotics and the antibacterial soaps themselves.
Microbiologist Dr. Stuart Levy of
Tufts
University told an International
Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases in Atlanta, Georgia
in 2000 that strong antibacterial cleaners are needed only when someone in a
household is seriously ill or has low immunity. He said that older cleansers
such as soap and hot water, alcohol, chlorine bleach and hydrogen peroxide
are sufficient for most purposes.
In fact, your use of antibacterial cleaners may be
hurting your baby’s immune system rather than keeping her healthy. Dr. Levy,
who has long been active with the
Alliance
for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics (APUA), spoke of an Italian study that
found that exposure to bacteria is essential for development of an infant’s
immune system. A baby, he said, must be exposed to germs during its first
year in order to develop the antibodies needed to fight infection later in
life. In 2006, the Canadian Paediatric Society called for parents to stop
buying antibacterial products, and instead use soap and water to wash toys,
hands or household items.
There are also environmental problems with the over-use
of antibacterial agents, which may, in turn, lead to health problems.
According to Peter Vikesland of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
in research published on Environmental Science & Technology’s Research ASAP
website, he and his colleagues found that triclosan reacts with chlorinated
water to produce unacceptably high levels of chloroform, which is known to
be a probable human carcinogen. The research also suggests that the reaction
of triclosan with chlorine could be producing highly chlorinated dioxins in
the presence of sunlight.
In 2006, Caren Helbing, a molecular biologist at British Columbia’s University of Victoria,
reported that while triclosan isn’t lethal in small quantities, it can
potentially affect the human thyroid gland. The thyroid plays a role in
development, body temperature and metabolism. Helbing’s research, published
in the online journal Aquatic Toxicology, found triclosan to be harmful in
the development of frogs and potentially humans. At the molecular level, the
chemical compound is similar to vertebrates’ thyroid hormone. Helbing found
triclosan at levels found in the environment disrupted a tadpole’s
transition into a frog.
A 2008 study by researchers at the University
California-Davis confirmed earlier research that added the antibacterial
chemical triclocarban to the list of problematic components of antibacterial
soaps. Using human and animal cell lines, researchers found that
triclocarban disrupts reproductive hormone activity. Unlike classical
endocrine disruptors that bind to cell receptors, triclocarban amplifies the
response of naturally occurring sex hormones. Because of feedback loops in
the body, amplification of these hormones could have the effect of
depressing natural estrogen and androgen production, potentially impacting
fertility and other hormone-dependent processes.
“Americans spend nearly one billion dollars a year on
these products even though recent studies show that they are no better than
regular soap and water at reducing the spread of illness. Now we have added
evidence that, in some cases, the benefits may not be worth the risks,” says
Dan Chang, professor emeritus of civil and environmental engineering at University of California.
“Manufacturers of products containing triclosan and triclocarban should
consider providing cautionary labels. There are new health-related data on
these chemicals that consumers should know about, even if the research is in
its early stages.”
The study was published online in Environmental Health
Perspectives, a publication of the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences.
“We decided to take a look at triclocarban and
triclosan because these compounds appeared to be building up in the
environment,” according to Bruce Hammock, a professor of entomology.
Triclosan tends to bioaccumulate , or become more concentrated in the fatty
tissues of humans and other animals. As a result, a number of studies since
2002 have detected it in human breast milk, and in blood samples as well.
Research in 2007 by the Centers for Disease Control on
a broad cross-section of the American population detected triclosan in the
urine of 75 percent of those studied. Higher levels were typically found in
higher income participants. An earlier study spearheaded by the Mount Sinai
School of Medicine found triclosan in the urine of 61 percent of 90 girls
age six to eight.
Triclosan has also been found in house dust and is
commonly used in everything from credit cards to children’s personal care
products, children’s toys, baby bibs and blankets and other items that
ensure exposure by children. However, regulations seem to ignore the
possibility of harm to this vulnerable group.
That is of special concern to the Environmental Working
Group (EWG), a Washington-based public health and environmental research and
advocacy organization, and one of the topics in a lengthy letter sent to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in mid-2008, during its review of
health and safety data for triclosan. “Triclosan persists in the
environment, breaks down into substances highly toxic to wildlife, pollutes
the human body and poses health risks that are barely studied and poorly
understood,” wrote Staff Scientist Rebecca Sutton and Vice President for
Research Jane Houlihan. They note that the EPA’s draft risk assessment is
“plagued with data gaps and inconsistencies” and “was crafted to support the
status quo.”
That status quo is irresponsible, says EWG, “because
triclosan has been proven ineffective, and EPA has failed to assess its
safety for children.” So they asked for a ban on triclosan in personal care
products and any other products used at home, in line with the conclusion of
the American Medical Association that common antimicrobials for which
resistance has been demonstrated should “be discontinued in consumer
products unless data emerge that conclusively show that such resistance has
no effect on public health and that such products are effective at
preventing infection.” They also suggest that consumers avoid the use of
triclosan-laden products whenever possible and that manufacturers
voluntarily curtail its use in advance of mandatory restrictions.
Triclosan and triclocarban were first introduced for
use by surgeons and other operating room personnel to prevent bacterial
infections. Today they are inexpensive and readily available, in part
because the patents on them have expired. “We are not concerned about
limited use in settings with clearly evident high-value such as in surgical
settings. It’s the widespread use that is of concern,” Hammock says.
Even though they’re exposing themselves to these harsh
products, many consumers are not reaping the intended benefits. Triclosan
and other antibacterial chemicals take time to work, needing to be left on a
surface for up to two minutes. Since most people are not that knowledgeable,
patient or conscientious, they end up rinsing off the antibacterial
cleansing agent before it has time to work. On the other hand, regular soap
gets rid of bacteria by attaching it to the soap’s fatty acids, which become
encapsulated in droplets of water and washed away.
Industry representatives, such as the Soap and
Detergent Association, contend that their antibacterial products are safe
and that people should be able to clean themselves and their homes as
effectively as hospitals. Another piece of the puzzle not mentioned by the
soap industry in its marketing of expensive antibacterial agents to
consumers is that many of the most common diseases are viral in nature and
therefore not prevented by antibacterial products!
So take the advice of some of the world’s best
microbiologists and medical doctors – including the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention – and wash your hands, your baby and your home
thoroughly with ordinary soap and warm water or, in the case of your home,
with natural cleaning agents like vinegar and baking soda. That way, you
will be effectively, safely and inexpensively warding off infection while
not destroying your family’s natural immunity, exposing yourselves to future
health problems or polluting our water supply.
Wendy Priesnitz is the editor
of Natural Child Magazine and others She is also the mother of two adult
daughters and the author of thirteen books.
