The Quick Facts: Experts recommend singing the “ABCs” song for effective hand-washing (20 seconds of vigorous washing with warm water). However, are we making the wrong choice to wash with? Antibacterial soaps have been found to be no more effective than using regular soap and do more harm than good to both human health and the environment.
More than ever, people are washing their hands with antibacterial soap, which experts say is harmful to our health and to the environment. More than three-quarters of soaps contain an “antibacterial” or “antimicrobial” ingredient. These ingredients are also found in cleaning products, laundry detergents, trash bags, and sponges, as well as toothpaste, socks, plastic kitchenware, cutting boards, and even toys. From 2000 to 2006, about 1,500 new antibacterial consumer products were introduced into the marketplace. However, antibacterial soaps have been found to be no more effective than using regular soap and do more harm than good.
The Problem Chemicals
Two antibacterial chemicals of concern are triclosan (TCS) and triclocarban (TCC). Triclosan (TCS) is found in antibacterial soaps as well as personal care products, cosmetics, mouthwash, toothpaste, acne treatments, lotions, hand soaps, dish soaps, socks, cutting boards, garbage bags, pesticides, shoe insoles, and basically any product that a manufacturer sees benefits of killing bacteria to reduce odor or increase shelf life. It is also used as an additive to plastics and sometimes to preserve products, including food. TCS is marketed under other trademarked names including Microban, Irgasan DP-300, Lexol 300, Ster-Zac, Cloxifenolum, and Biofresh. As a chemical, TCS structurally resembles dioxin (the Love Canal poison) and has had the attention of toxicologists for years.
Triclocarban (TCC) was relatively unknown and presumed harmless as recently as 2004. According to Science Daily, TCC is widely used in bar soaps, deodorants, toothpaste, cutting boards and countertops, body washes, cleansing lotions, wipes, detergents, and even baby toys. TCC-containing products have been marketed broadly in the United States and Europe for more than 45 years; an estimated 1 million pounds of TCC are imported annually for the U.S. market.
Impacts to Your Health
TCS and TCC are concerning toxicologists, health professionals, and some agencies and consumers. Studies have shown human health effects from use of antibacterial soap and other products.
Triclosan can enter the bloodstream through the skin, mouth, or intestines. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP), in 2004, “about three-quarters of adults and children older than six had detectable levels of triclosan” in their bodies. Recent studies have detected TCS in human blood samples and in 3 of 5 random samples of human breast milk. TCS was also found in the urine of 61 percent of 90 girls ages 6 to 8 in a study by Mount Sinai School of Medicine. The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization, led studies that detected TCS in 17 of 21 people tested.
An increasing number of studies show both TCS and TCC are endocrine disrupters, interfering with normal hormone functions in mammals and other animals. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that have been “linked in animal studies to a variety of problems, including cancer, reproductive failure, and developmental anomalies.” According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, endocrine disruptors may cause reduced fertility in women and men, early puberty in girls, and increases in cancers of the breast, ovaries, and prostate.
Further, researchers at Virginia Tech University discovered that the use of antimicrobial soaps and other products may be directly exposing consumers to significant quantities of chloroform, a chemical classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a probable human carcinogen (cancer-causing). The research shows that when TCS reacts with chlorine in tap water, chloroform is produced, exposing people to chloroform levels 40 percent higher than that found in tap water. It is possible that the chloroform could be absorbed through skin or inhaled. Most household water contains chlorine from disinfection at water treatment plants. Children are at the greatest risk, as they tend to swallow their TCS or TCC-containing toothpaste (and resulting chloroform) more while brushing their teeth.
In addition, dermatologists blame the overuse of antibacterial soap for the spread of certain skin diseases. The components of the antibacterial soaps wipe away more bacteria and tend to be harsh on skin. People use the antibacterial soaps, which dries the skin and can lead to open sores.
TCS and TCC may also become suspects in the search for causes of autism. Studies are being done to assess how TCS may affect the brain. Some people may carry a mutated gene that makes it easier for triclosan to attach to their cells. That could make them more vulnerable to any effects triclosan may cause. As such, triclosan is a prime target for research into environmental factors that might cause autism.
While antibacterial products are safe for most people, in general, other research does show that “there may be sensitive periods in development when these compounds could have a very subtle detrimental effect.” Specifically, the chemicals are most likely to do harm during pregnancy, early childhood, and adolescence.
Besides resistance, the antibacterial craze has another potential consequence. Reports have found a correlation between too much hygiene and increased allergies. Studies reveal an increased frequency of allergies, cases of asthma, and eczema in persons who have been raised in an environment overly protective against bacteria and germs.
Also, some experts suspect widespread use of antibacterial products may help turn some dangerous germs into “superbugs” that are resistant to antibiotics. In studies, TCS promoted the growth of resistant bacteria.
Impacts to the Environment
According to Rolf Halden, PhD, a scientist at Arizona State University, Americans dump more than one million pounds of TCS and TCC into the environment every year from discharges of treated wastewater into surface waters (e.g., oceans, bays, rivers, and lakes). Halden found that sewage treatment captures only about 50% of the TCS and less than 25% of the TCC that goes down people’s drains.
TCC and TCS are being detected in our nation’s waterways, persist in the environment, and accumulate in the tissues and organs of animals. TCC is one of today’s top ten chemicals most frequently found in the environment and in U.S. drinking water resources. TCS has been detected in 60 percent of the U.S. water resources investigated.
In waterways, antibacterial soap chemicals significantly affect algae growth and have been shown to alter the development of fish. TCS accumulates in the gills of fish and makes algae inedible to other species, which disrupts the entire ecosystem. Researchers found TCS in the blood of bottlenose dolphins in South Carolina and Florida waterways.
Also, when TCS gets exposed to sunlight, it rapidly degrades into dioxins. Dioxins are potent toxins classified by EPA as cancer-causing.
TCC and TCS survive wastewater treatment and ends-up in our surface water as well as in municipal sludge, a byproduct of wastewater treatment. This sludge is regularly applied to U.S. crop fields as a fertilizer, potentially threatening our food sources. According to Johns Hopkins University research, every year, an estimated 200 tons of TCC and TCS are applied to agricultural lands nationwide.
Actions Against Antibacterials
Some agencies, professional associations, as well as nonprofit organizations, are taking action. In 2000, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially opposed adding antimicrobials to consumer products. The AMA has repeatedly urged the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to better regulate these chemicals, advising that they should be avoided “until the data emerge to show antimicrobials in consumer products are effective at preventing infection.” The CDCP periodically monitors levels of TCS, the most common antibacterial agent, in randomly selected Americans.
Currently, FDA and EPA are examining antibacterial soap’s impacts on human and environmental health. A 2005 FDA advisory committee found no benefit to antibacterial over regular soap, but potential risks. EPA has said it will formally review TCS in 2013 — ten years earlier than previously planned! The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Union currently regulate triclosan, and EPA classifies this substance as a probable human carcinogen.
A petition filed by the nonprofit organizations Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch (with support from dozens of other groups), argues that TCS should not be approved for use in consumer products. The groups claim that the science used to create existing TCS regulations, as well as the regulations themselves, are outdated.
Healthier Options & Solutions
A team of researchers found that washing hands with an antibacterial soap was “no more effective in preventing infectious illness than plain soap.” In a single study, people who used antibacterial soap did have fewer bacteria on their hands, but only if they washed for 30 seconds, 18 times a day, for five days straight!
Researchers simply recommend using regular soap, which kills 90% of bacteria and leaves little impact on the environment. Experts do say there antibacterial soaps do prevent illness in health care settings where patients are more vulnerable to germs (but, keep in mind that antibacterial ingredients in hospital-strength soaps are up to 10 times the concentration of store-bought soap).
Here are some recommendations and points to remember:
• Antibacterial products are only effective in killing bacteria. They do not prevent the spread of viral infections, which are responsible for a large percentage of contagious diseases such as the flu and colds.
• Aim to be clean, not germ-free. You can’t conquer all bacteria, nor should you. As one researcher says, “Bacteria are everywhere, and most bacteria are not harmful.”
• Frequently wash and rub hands together vigorously for 20 seconds. Rinse thoroughly. Dry hands well and launder hand towels often in hot water.
• Shop for environmentally friendly cleaners that do not contain triclosan or triclocarbon (e.g., Bon Ami; Baking soda, vinegar and water; for alternatives for toothpaste and cosmetics, consult the Safe Cosmetics Data Base). . Read product labels; do not buy ones with the words “antibacterial,” “kills germs,” or “triclosan.” Also, skip these ingredients: chlorine, lye, glycol ethers, and ammonia.
• Disinfect objects that come into contact with raw meat, fish, or eggs, such as cutting boards and utensils. Use a dishwasher and be sure it reaches 171 degrees F. Use environmentally friendly cleaners in stores or make your own by using white vinegar followed by 3% hydrogen peroxide.
• Disinfect sponges and rags: Microwave for 30 seconds on high power if dry, longer if wet — sponges for one minute, and rags for three minutes.
• Clean bathrooms and kitchen hard surfaces. Use borax, which is also effective on mildew, especially combined with vinegar. You can make a cleaning solution by adding 1/2 cup of each to a gallon of water. Hydrogen peroxide will reduce microorganisms on surfaces.
Essentially, it is up to consumers to make the choice to wipe-out the use of antibacterial soap and products for you and your family’s health, and the environment.
For other related Real Mama Articles, see:
Skin Deep: Chemicals in Personal Care Products and Cosmetics Pose Health Risks
Pharmaceuticals in the Environment
Greening Your Spring Cleaning
Safe Sunscreen for Kids
Safe Bug Spray for Kids
Toy Recalls: All I Want for the Holidays is a Non-Toxic, Safe Toy
Information used in this article was found at the following sources, which you can visit if you want to find out more about this topic:
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080516100942.htm, Arizona State University, “Fate Of Personal Care Products Linked To Environmental Pollution And Human Health Concerns.” ScienceDaily May 1, 2008. Last accessed January 10, 2010.)
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050122145639.htm, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “Anti-Bacterial Additive Widespread In U.S. Waterways.” ScienceDaily January 24, 2005. Last accessed January 10, 2010.)
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070815173055.htm, University of Michigan, “Plain Soap As Effective As Antibacterial But Without The Risk.” ScienceDaily August 16, 2007, last accessed January 10, 2010.)
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071207150713.htm, University of California – Davis, “Antibacterial Chemical Disrupts Hormone Activities, Study Finds.” ScienceDaily December 8, 2007. Last accessed January 10, 2010.)
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050415113734.htm, Virginia Tech, “Being Too Clean Could Be Hazardous To Your Health And The Environment.” ScienceDaily April 15, 2005. Last accessed January 10, 2010.)
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0510-07.htm, “Threat Seen From Antibacterial Soap Chemicals,” Los Angeles Times, by Marla Cone, May 10, 2006).
(http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/503928/?sc=wire, “Don’t Wash Your Hands Without Reading This: Avoid Antibacterial Soaps,” Saint Louis University Medical Center, March 29, 2004.)
(http://www.nurseweek.com/features/98-10/soap.html, “Wash Out: Could antibacterial soaps create new bacterial strains?” by Mary Ann Hellinghausen, October 1, 1998. Last accessed January 10, 2010.)
(http://www.motherearthnews.com/Natural-Health/2006-10-01/Why-You-Dont-Need-Antibacterial-Soap.aspx, “Why you don’t need antibacterial soap,” Mother Earth News, by Tabitha Alterman, October/November 2006.)
(http://www.naturalnews.com/021703_triclosan_soap_antibacterial_soap.html, “Antibacterial soap ingredient triclosan may be harmful to humans,” by David Gutierrez, March 15, 2007.)
(http://www.naturalnews.com/022178_triclosan_toothpaste_bacteria.html, “Toxic chemical triclosan commonly found in anti-bacterial soaps, toothpaste products,” by Mike Adams, October 29, 2007.)
(http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web3/bond.html, “Can We Get Too Clean?” by Millicent Bond, 2001, last accessed January 10, 2010.)
(http://www.naturalnews.com/021396_soap_water_health.html, “Report: Soap and water as effective as environment-damaging antibacterial cleaners,” by Ben Kage, January 08, 2007, last accessed January 10, 2010.)
(http://www.naturalnews.com/026110_soap_chemicals_clay.html, “The Benefits of Using Real, Natural Soap,” by Cheryl McCoy, April 24, 2009, last accessed January 10, 2010.)
(http://www.webmd.com/health-ehome-9/antibacterial-soap-cleaners, “Antibacterial Soap: Do You Need It to Keep Your Home Clean?” by Matthew Hoffman, MD, WebMD, last accessed January 11, 2010.)
(http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2009/09/02/anti-bacterial-soap-is-the-medicine-worse-than-the-cure/, “Antibacterial Soap: Is the Medicine Worse than the Cure?” Quest, September 2nd, 2009, last accessed January 11, 2010.)
(http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/anti-bacterial-soap-triclosan-47071501, “Antibacterial Soap: An Imminent Threat to Human Health and the Environment?” by Dan Shapley, The Daily Green, July 15, 2009, last accessed January 11, 2010.)
(http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/green-products-services/antibacterial-soap-55073001, “Seven Alternatives to Antibacterial Soap,” by Diane MacEachern, The Daily Green, July 30, 2008, last accessed January 11, 2010.)
(http://www.ewg.org/node/21840, “Water pollution caused by cosmetic chemicals, cleaning supplies and plastics: Triclosan.” Environmental Working Group, 2007-2009, last accessed January 11, 2010.)
(http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=89871, “Safety of Antibacterial Soap Debated,” by Martin Downs, May 29, 2008, last accessed January 11, 2010.)
(http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/go-local/yes-but-how, “YES! But How? Cold Remedies” by Catherine Bailey, Sarah Kuck, November 20, 2006, last accessed January 11, 2010.).
(http://www.naturalchildmagazine.com/news/case_against_antibacterial_soap.htm, “When Clean Isn’t Always So Clean: The Case Against Antibacterial Soap,” by Wendy Priesnitz, 2009, last accessed January 11, 2010.)
(http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/levy.htm, “Antibacterial Household Products: Cause for Concern,” by Stuart B. Levy, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, June 2001, last accessed January 11, 2010.)
(http://hubpages.com/hub/3-reasons-to-avoid-antibacterial-soap, “3 Reasons to Avoid Antibacterial Soaps and Products,” last accessed January 11, 2010.)
(http://www.easy-immune-health.com/triclosan.html, “Is Triclosan In Antibacterial Soap Making You Sick?” 2008, last accessed January 11, 2010.)
(http://www.beyondpesticides.org/documents/triclosan.petition.fda.7-14.pdf, “Amended Citizen Petition to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration,” last accessed January 11, 2010.)
(http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/triclosan_fs.htm, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision and Risk Assessment for the Pesticidal Uses of Triclosan,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, October 2008, last accessed January 18, 2010.)
Tags: antibacterial soap, environmental impact, hand washing, harmful ingredients, healthy alternatives, triclocarbon, triclosan
