(Here is news from the NRDC about finally regulating the use of Tricolsan, a chemical in antibacterial products, face cleansers, and toothpastes. This toxin is harmful for the environment and for people. I've reported about this chemical before on Non-Toxic Kids and I am glad to see the NRDC taking action on this issue. )
The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit today against the Food and Drug Administration for failing to issue a final rule regulating the chemicals triclosan and triclocarban, which are commonly found in antibacterial soaps. These chemicals are suspected endocrine disruptors linked to reproductive and developmental harm in laboratory studies. NRDC filed today’s lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit today against the Food and Drug Administration for failing to issue a final rule regulating the chemicals triclosan and triclocarban, which are commonly found in antibacterial soaps. These chemicals are suspected endocrine disruptors linked to reproductive and developmental harm in laboratory studies. NRDC filed today’s lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
“Washing your hands with so-called antibacterial soap containing triclosan or triclocarban actually does nothing different than using regular soap and water. Using soap containing these chemicals does not provide an additional benefit as consumers might think, but instead actually comes with potential health risks,” said Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist in the Health and Environment Program at NRDC. “The FDA needs to prohibit these harmful chemicals from being put into products in the first place.”
The majority of consumer soaps claiming to be “antibacterial” or “antimicrobial” contain the chemicals triclosan or triclocarban. FDA first proposed a rule that would have removed these chemicals from soaps in 1978. Until this rule is finalized, these chemicals can be widely used with no regulatory oversight – despite evidence that they are not effective and numerous studies associate them with serious health risks. The growing use of these chemicals in products has led to widespread residues in the environment and in people; recent bio-monitoring results found residues of triclosan in 75 percent of Americans over the age of six. The chemicals are absorbed through contact with the skin and tests have found them in human blood, urine and even breast milk.
Laboratory studies have shown that these chemicals are endocrine-disruptors capable of interfering with hormones critical for normal development and reproduction. Such hormonal interference has the potential to cause long-term health problems including poor sperm quality and infertility, and damage to the developing brain leading to poor learning and memory. Several studies suggest that triclosan and triclocarban also may contribute to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
In April, FDA acknowledged soaps containing triclosan offer no additional benefit over regular soap and water. FDA also expressed concern about the development of antibiotic resistance from using antibacterial products and about triclosan’s potential long-term health effects, but did not move ahead on the rule-making.
“Three decades of delay is outrageous,” said Avinash Kar, an attorney with NRDC. “FDA needs to issue a final rule on triclosan and triclocarban now, and that rule should ban both chemicals in hand soaps.”
Today’s lawsuit asks the court to impose a strict deadline for FDA to finalize the rule, which has been pending for 32 years. Under FDA’s current proposal, the rule would ban the continued use of triclosan and triclocarban in many antibacterial products.
For more information: http://www.nrdc.org/health/files/antimicrobials.pdf
6 comments:
The resistance issue is a good point. The safety I am not so sure about. But why question the fact that triclosan is antibacterial? It is easy to demonstrate that it works as an antibacterial, and I imagine that hundreds of labs have done so over the years. Certainly the one I worked in did. And if it doesn't work, then you won't get any resistance to it.
Are you maybe a bit confused here?
Colin I think the point was that it doesn't necessarily kill more bacteria than normal soap. And whether or not you believe it's unsafe isn't relevant. They need to research these things before putting them on the market.
I for one am disgusted, it never occurred to me t hat the soap I am using could harm more unborn child. I'm furious. The FDA is such a waste of space.
Thanks for posting this... off to buy new soap.
I have worked on antibacterial products including triclosan. And I have worked on soaps. Never actually antibacterial soaps, but even so I think I am reasonably familiar with the area.
The companies that make these products spend a lot of money doing lots of research. I know that not least because some of it turned as my pay cheque. The Swiss company that first developed triclosan has a roomful of toxicity data on it. That isn't a figure of speech. They literally have a room full.
I can't really comment on the FDA not living in America but I have never found them to be negligent in my dealings with them. Far from it.
What harm do you think triclosan could do to unborn children? I don't work in that area at the moment but I would be interested to see the research.
Hello Colin,
It is interesting to hear your perspective since you have worked in this industry.
There was an extensive study about toxic chemicals in the umbilical cords of newborn babies done by the Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org).
There is a growing body of research about the toxicity of tricolsan, especially to wildlife. I have to head off on a family trip, or I would cite the studies. They are easily found online.
Thanks for your comment.
Katy
Funnily enough I have just found out that the Cosmetic Ingredient Review for triclosan is freel viewable on their website.
http://www.cir-safety.org/staff_files/triclo042010litreview.pdf
It still looks pretty safe to me.
I am afraid I have heard so much rubbish from the Enviromental Working Group that I don't take any notice of them any more.
Just in case you think I am an apologist for triclosan, I do think it should be banned in cosmetcs worldwide. This is because I think there is a danger of resistance robbing us of a useful antibacterial and because I think it has a very specific harmful effect on the environment. I have seen papers which suggest strongly that it interferes with water purification. I only picked that up from an activist blogger - I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. I think it is great that people take an interest and it really does help to have people looking at things with fresh eyes. Even things that seem to be perfectly safe can turn out to have unexpected problems when they get out in the real world.
I will keep reading.
Colin
Our government needs to step up and protect us against toxic chemicals at least as good as the EU, which has banned thousands of chemicals still widely used in bath and body products here in the US. So much for our country being a great leader. Instead, we are poisoning our children, land, water, and air in the name of growth. Fortunately there are sites like yours, groups like EWG, NRDC, and those founded (http://www.ecomom.com and http://www.ecomomalliange.org) that are helping raise awareness to demand stronger legislation in support of suits like this.
Thank you for your great coverage and...a beautiful site!
Post a Comment