Years of mounting evidence about the environmental and health dangers of “antibacterial” compounds and repeated calls for increased regulation again point to a profound weakness in federal policy: most chemicals and drugs are allowed in consumer goods, the food chain and the environment until regulators prove them unsafe. In this case, the two particular chemicals of concern are triclosan and triclocarban, which, according to research, disrupt hormones and body chemistry, increase antibiotic resistance, and harm aquatic ecosystems. They are used in soaps, toothpaste, detergents, mouthwash, almost anywhere you see the suspect claim of “antibacterial.” On product labels, one or the other is listed under “Drug Facts.” Sewage treatment plants do not remove them from human waste and, of course, consumers dispose of them as readily as they do kitchen scraps. The chemicals are now common in human urine and drinking water, and have been shown to have deleterious effects on aquatic organisms. The FDA announcement about “antibacterial” chemicals comes soon after agency action on the excessive use of antibiotics in livestock, which itself followed more than three decades of warnings by health experts. In that ruling, FDA’s proposed remedy was voluntary guidelines for the livestock industry the industry was pleased. Even though the FDA website makes a strong case that “antibacterial” soap and hygiene products are a sham, it is far from certain the agency has a strong enough stomach to regulate product manufacturers beyond its current demand for proof. In 2008, it announced a policy review will be forthcoming “in 2013, ten years earlier than originally planned,” even though health experts had already declared triclosan and triclocarban worthless to consumers for more than a decade.Ī Jarticle by Kelly Woo in the Philadelphia Inquirer summarized well-established expert opinion: the chemicals likely increase antibiotic resistance, are unproven, and are not as good as old-fashioned soap and water: On the environmental side, according to the FDA, it “and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been closely collaborating on science and regulatory issues related to triclosan.” EPA has chief environmental authority over the chemicals and regulates them as pesticides. “I think it’s totally a marketing ploy to feed into people’s fears about infection,” said Neil Fishman, director of the antimicrobial management program at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center.
There may be specific situations where the products can be helpful – such as places where water is not readily available. “Without a health benefit, the question is: Do we need them? But for everyday use at home, “no one has shown that they do any good,” said Stuart Levy, director of the Center for Adaptation Genetics and Drug Resistance at Tufts University. Rolf Halden, now of Arizona State University: Last month, the American Medical Association urged the government to increase regulation of antibacterial products, concluding that there was no scientific data for “any proven infection-fighting benefit.”Ī Maarticle in The Montreal Gazette reported on the work of Dr. We’ve been using triclocarban for almost half a century at rates approaching one million pounds. We started looking and found in the first sample we took, in the Baltimore region. constant level of antibacterial chemicals may make disease-causing bacteria stronger, and more resistant to drugs.Įight years later, he welcomes the FDA ruling.Īnd found one or both antibacterial chemicals (triclocarban and triclosan) in 60 per cent of water supplies. The FDA’s move is a prudent and important step toward (a) preserving the efficacy of clinically important antibiotics, (b) preventing unnecessary exposure of the general population to endocrine disrupting and potentially harmful chemicals, and (c) throttling back the increasing release and accumulation of antimicrobials in the environment.ĭr.
John Kelly, microbial ecologist at Loyola University in Chicago, and Emma J.
0 kommentar(er)
