benign
antimicrobial products. However, there appears to be widespread scientific
consensus that for most routine home uses, thorough washing with soap
provides sufficient protection.

In domestic use, there's the possibility that some antimicrobial products
could induce disease-causing bacteria to evolve antibiotic resistance.
Then, as they flow down the drain into sewers and beyond, significant
tonnages can accumulate in the tissues of wildlife and people with
potentially toxic consequences. And it could be that dramatic increases in
asthma and allergy rates are related to immune-system distortion that comes
from living in microbe-poor bubbles.

Homeland sterility enforcement

Brian Sansoni, vice president for communication and membership with the
Soap and Detergent Association, cites a body of research showing that
antibacterial soaps reduce the numbers of harmful bacteria on the skin or
other surfaces and are especially useful when you're caring for elderly or
immunosuppressed people, dealing with an infectious illness in the house,
or preparing food.

"The bottom line," says Sansoni, "is that consumers can continue to safely
use antibacterial soaps and hygiene products with confidence - as they
already do in homes, schools, offices, hospitals and health care centers,
day care centers and nursing homes - every single day."

Among family members who do most of the housecleaning, 71 percent say they
prefer to use antibacterial products when available. And germ-killing
products are more widely available than ever. As of 2001, 76 percent of
liquid hand soaps and 29 percent of bar soaps contained antibacterial
chemicals. Mintel's Global New Products Database has seen introductions of
new antimicrobial products grow from fewer than 200 in 2003 to more than
1600 last year.

Once you've strategically placed chemical hand cleaners in the kitchen,
bedroom, car, and office, you can stock up on antimicrobial toothpaste,
cosmetics, kitchen counter wipes, cutting boards, knives, chopsticks,
dishrags, gloves, underwear, bath towels, computer keyboards, toys, dog ear
wipes, laundry detergent, and paint. The Amana Corporation is promoting a
washing machine whose drum is impregnated with an antimicrobial chemical,
and several manufacturers offer vacuum cleaners that are chemically
resistant to bacteria or bathe your carpet in germ-killing ultraviolet
light. And, if you're intent on leaving no bug unturned, you can subscribe
to an antibacterial garbage can-cleaning service.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has registered 8,000 disinfectant
products to date. That's required, because the law says they're pesticides.
Whether it's referred to as "disinfectant" or "antibacterial" or
"antimicrobial" or even the somewhat disturbing term "biocidal," each
compound kills a range or organisms -- bacteria, fungi, yeast, or even the
viruses that cause colds and flu -- but none fully eradicates them.

The most popular of these weapons are still products of pre-1970 "better
living through chemistry." There are standbys like ammonia, pine oil, and
chlorine bleach, as well as types of germ-killing super-detergents called
quaternary ammonium compounds; most prominent in that latter class is
benzalkonium chloride, the active ingredient in many disinfectant wipes and
sprays.

The compound drawing the most recent attention has been triclosan, along
with its cousin triclocarban. Those chemicals, 1960s-era spinoffs from
weed-killer research, are considered safe enough to come into very close
contact with the human body: in food preparation, bathing, and even for
cleaning sex toys.

Chemical weapons can backfire

Triclosan regularly makes the news because of suspicions that it might
select for populations of bacteria resistant to pharmaceutical antibiotics.
That's because triclosan and some antibiotic drugs attack bacteria through
similar mechanisms, and resistant bacteria use similar means to rid
themselves of both types of (what are to them) toxins.

A 2003 study funded by Proctor & Gamble Company allayed concerns about
washing dishes with antibacterial detergent, finding that genetic
resistance did not increase in bacterial cultures exposed to triclosan for
several months. At the time the paper was published, one of its authors, a
scientist at a British university, told the press that Proctor & Gamble
"does not produce a liquid dishwashing detergent that contains triclosan"
-- implying that the company therefore had no conflict of interest. P&G
did, however, make a range of other products containing the chemical, and
soon after, began marketing triclosan-fortified dishwashing liquids as well.

An independent 2004 evaluation of bacterial cultures collected from hands
in more than 200 upper-Manhattan households did not find a relationship
between resistance to triclosan and resistance to antibiotics (pdf). The
lead author on that study was Dr. Allison Aiello, now assistant professor
of epidemiology at the University of Michigan. She believes too little
research that has been done to date, and much of what has been done was
funded by industry.

Says Aiello, "There is still a big gap in surveillance and research on the
ground." Now that lab research has made clearer the potential mechanisms by
which triclosan might help breed bacteria resistant to clinical
antibiotics, she says, "We need rigorous, independent, long-term studies on
household use to fill the gaps in our knowledge."

Brian Sansoni also welcomes more research, but he says it shouldn't matter
who pays for it: "The fact is, it's industry's responsibility to undertake
and/or fund research on the ingredients they produce or are used in their
products. It's a part of good product stewardship."

Back in the laboratory, there are hints of trouble. Research has shown, for
example, that lab-selected strains of the disease-causing bacteria
Salmonella enterica and Escherichia coli O157 resistant to triclosan or
benzalkonium chloride also showed increased resistance to antibiotic drugs.
Such "cross resistance" has been associated with use of other disinfectants
as well, including pine oil, which is the natural active ingredient of Pine
Sol.

Aiello points to another potential worry: "The triclosan concentrations
used in medical settings are quite high, and are effective. But my work
shows that the concentration in household soaps and detergents [only a
tenth to a half of one percent, which is diluted further in cleaning] is
too low to be very effective in reducing illness." On the other hand, she
says, that lighter exposure may be just right for leaving behind
genetically adapted bacteria.

To Sansoni, the threat of bacterial resistance is "suburban mythology."
Pointing to the research of Aiello and others, he says, "The studies and
the research to-date have shown there is no real world evidence linking the
use of antibacterial products to antibiotic resistance."

"It is a shame," he adds, "that a few loud voices are trying to equate use
of antibacterial products in the same breath with the known contributor to
the antibiotic resistance problem: the over-prescription of antibiotic
drugs by the medical community. It's like trying to compare an anthill to
Mount Everest."

The associate director of the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory at the
University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, Dr. Paul Fey, says he would
be concerned if, as some studies indicate, the molecular "pumps" that
resistant bacteria use to rid themselves of triclosan could also flush out
medically important antibiotics. "That's another good reason why triclosan
and other antibiotics should not be used in soaps, plastics, etc. And it's
unnecessary. Plain soap itself is one of the best antimicrobials there is."

Sansoni cites an issue brief his group provided a US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) advisory committee in 2005, describing the benefits of
antimicrobial bars, liquids, gels and wipes. In the end, that committee
issued a nonbinding statement saying that in routine use, antibacterial
soaps are no better at fending off illness than is regular soap, and that
they might contribute to antibiotic resistance in bacteria. FDA took no
action in response to the panel's recommendation.

Beyond the kitchen sink

Proctor & Gamble Company scientists have published studies showing that
sewage treatment can break down triclosan. But, says Dr. Rebecca Sutton,
staff scientist at the Oakland, Calif. office of the Environmental Working
Group (EWG), "Our current water-treatment processes are not designed to
deal with it, and they aren't dealing with it." She points to numerous
studies finding triclosan and triclocarban througout the environment,
including the waters of San Francisco Bay.

The US Geological Survey reported in 2002 on a wide range of potential
pollutants found in stream across the country. Triclosan was identified in
58 percent of the samples. Out of 95 chemicals surveyed, triclosan was one
of the most commonly detected, outstripped by only three others: caffeine,
cholesterol, and a metabolite of nicotine.

As far back as 1998, the people of Sweden were spitting out two tons of
triclosan per year in their antibacterial toothpastes alone. In 2002, the
chemical was detected in the country's municipal wastewaters, fish, and
human breast milk.

Triclocarban, of which 1.7 million pounds are produced in the US each year
-- check that rusty orange label on your bar soap -- was found at high
levels downstream from three sewage-treatment plants out of nine surveyed
across nine states. But it was in the treated solids -- sludge -- where the
chemical built up to more than a million times the concentration flowing
into the plants.

Triclosan behaves similarly. Speaking to Scientific American, Rolf Halden
of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health explained that their
buildup in bacteria-laden sewage solids is of particular concern because
sludge is used to fertilize food crops. That, he said, "could be a recipe
for breeding antimicrobial resistance."

And along with resistant bacteria, there are the prospects of dead algae,
ailing fish and amphibians, and even sick humans. In a 2003 Japanese study,
triclosan was acutely toxic to very young fish and caused liver damage in
older males. And triclocarban can amplify the action of testosterone in
humans and rats.

In other recent experiments, triclosan disrupted the functioning of frogs'
thyroid glands. That is especially worrisome, says Sutton, because "the
effects occurred even at concentrations less that are found in many of the
country's streams, and the human and frog thyroid systems are very similar."

The Fear Factor

To declare war on household bacteria is to lose -- inevitably. You've
probably seen the slogan many times on Lysol products (manufactured by
Reckitt Benckiser PLC): "Kills 99.9% of germs in 30 seconds." And who's to
doubt it? But under good conditions, the much-feared bacterium
Staphylococcus aureus, for example, doubles its numbers every 30 minutes
through cell division. So once the Lysol has worn off and the surviving
bacteria go back to multiplying, the population could grow to its pre-Lysol
size in as little as 5 hours.

Rather than stockpile buckets of disinfectant and spray every surface in
the house every few hours, most independent researchers recommend that we
settle for a stalemate in the war on microbes. But the home-products
industry has other ideas.

Along with nursing and family groups, Clorox cosponsors a "Say Boo to the
Flu" campaign, which, along with videos on handwashing and vaccination,
features microbiologist Dr. Kelly Reynolds of the University of Arizona
advising parents to be sure the cleaning products they buy are labeled
"disinfecting" or that they contain chlorine bleach or quaternary ammonium
compounds -- both of which are made by Clorox.

(A well-publicized 2002 study conducted by Dr. Reynolds's Arizona
colleagues -- and funded by Clorox -- found that the average office desk is
populated with 400 times as many bacteria as the average toilet seat. That
sounds terrifying until you remember that neither desks nor toilet seats
are significant causes of any kind of illness.)

WebMD's Flu Prevention page, sponsored by Lysol, features straightforward
articles like one on the universally recommended practice of handwashing
with plain soap and water. Alongside that are "Flu tips for parents," in
which a Dr. Jim Sears recommends that "one of the most important ways to
protect your family and stop viruses dead in their tracks is to disinfect
commonly touched surfaces with a disinfectant spray or wipe, such as those
made by Lysol®."

The Dial Corporation, which kicked off combat against skin-borne microbes
with a deodorant in the 1940s, boosted sales of its antibacterial soaps in
2003 with a series of less-than-subtle TV ads. Featuring a range of
scenarios -- a kid urinating in a swimming pool, a man using someone else's
sweat-drenched towel in a gym, a nudist group riding a bus -- the
commercials fed buyers' germ-phobia.

One of the company's vice presidents told USA Today, "We had been talking
to focus groups, and consumers were coming back and saying, 'I'm clean
enough.' We were stuck with this dilemma. But we turned it around and came
up with [the ads'] premise: 'You're not as clean as you think you are.'"

Antibacterial compounds in bar soap or shoe insoles are there to make you
smell better, not to keep you healthy. Used in mop handles, computer
mouses, or telephones, they are intended to protect the object, not you,
against degradation by run-of-the-mill bacteria and fungi. And bathing with
antibacterial soap offers no protection when you swallow pee-laced pool-water.

But paranoia sells.

The Reactionary Principle

A commentary last year in the journal Occupational and Environmental
Medicine urged adoption of the well-known "Precautionary Principle" -- that
when a substance or technology is suspected of being harmful,
"precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect
relationships are not fully established scientifically." Instead, said the
article, current research operates under the "Reactionary Principle." The
author explained:

Under this system, anyone is free to introduce a new hazard into the
environment, and governments must wait until an overwhelming body of
evidence is accumulated before intervening. Each new regulatory action is
challenged with the objective of slowing down or stopping public oversight
... We can see reactionary principle inaction in the unconscionable delays
in regulating a long list of hazards whose risks were clear long before
effective actions were taken to control them: asbestos, benzene, dioxins
and PCBs. While these are "old" hazards, a reactionary approach is evident
as well in many current controversies in our field, including the potential
health risks from hexavalent chromium, artificial butter flavouring, and
the antimicrobial agent triclosan.

Even if, displaying full trust in the safety of antimicrobials, you could
manage to eliminate those 99.9 perecent of bacteria and viruses from your
doorknobs, your computer keyboard, and the change in your pocket, you would
still be carrying in and on yourself a community of microorganisms
outnumbering -- ten times over -- the cells of your own body. Almost all of
those creatures are either neutral or beneficial to you.

But the modern arsenal of purifying products, including not only
disinfectants but also regular detergents, medications, vegetable washes,
ozone blowers, ultraviolet gizmos, filtered and bottled drinking water, air
conditioning, and year-round-sealed windows may be reducing contact between
people -- especially children -- and organisms with which we've evolved and
which our bodies need for healthy development. Not being "smart weapons",
antimicrobial products can wreak collateral damage on harmless and friendly
microbes.

The now 30-year-old "hygiene hypothesis" says that skyrocketing rates of
allergy and asthma in Western societies may result from human immune
systems being driven haywire by excessively sterile home environments. It's
a hard thing to demonstrate, the biological mechanisms are highly complex,
and there are still plenty of doubters, but patterns continue to fit fairly
well. (For an excellent discussion of the hypothesis, see Garry Hamilton's
2005 article in the British magazine New Scientist. Unfortunately, it's not
free online).

"We have to find a healthy balance in hygiene," says Allison Aiello. "For
example, right now on your hands there are millions of beneficial
Staphylococcus bacteria that help maintain the health of your skin." In
fact, in her work she has seen disease-conscious people scrub their hands
too enthusiastically, creating dry-skin cracks that other, more dangerous
bacterial species can infect.

To Paul Fey, putting antimicrobial chemicals into cleaners and toys is
"just crazy -- The only reason it's there is to keep parents from
worrying." But, he thinks, maybe it's the products themselves they should
be worrying about: "This constant search for a totally sterile environment
may be hurting our health, and especially children's health."

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. His book, Sick
Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, will be published by Pluto Press in
April.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/75333/