Excerpt:
Toothpaste fear for unborn babies
By Pat HaganLast updated at 3:38 PM on 14th January 2011
Research suggests triclosan might pose a danger of brain damage to children
Scientists fear pregnant women who are exposed to high levels of the chemical, called triclosan, may be putting their babies at risk.
New findings suggest triclosan may disrupt the flow of blood to the uterus, starving a baby’s brain of the oxygen it needs to develop properly.
Last night researchers involved in the study called for urgent investigations into the dangers to unborn babies.
Professor Margaret James of the University of Florida said: ‘We know it’s a problem. But we just don’t know how much of a problem.’
Triclosan is a powerful anti-bacterial that was developed nearly 50 years ago.
It is now commonly used in everything from toothpastes, deodorants and handwashes to washing-up liquid, anti-bacterial chopping boards and even some toys.
However, it has been dogged by concerns over its safety and earlier this year the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. announced it was carrying out a major review on its safety.
In the latest study, tests on sheep showed it interferes with an enzyme that allows the hormone oestrogen to circulate in the womb.
Oestrogen helps to keep open the main artery carrying oxygen-rich blood to the foetus.
If there is too little, this artery narrows and oxygen supplies are depleted.
In the UK, the chemical’s use is covered by the EU Cosmetics Directive, which says it is safe to use but only in small doses. The maximum content allowed in any product is 0.3 per cent.
Drug giant GlaxoSmithKline has phased out the use of triclosan in its Aquafresh and Sensodyne toothpaste and Corsodyl mouthwash. It is still used in brands such as Colgate Total.
Elizabeth Salter-Green, director of the ChemTrust, which lobbies for responsible use of man-made chemicals, urged pregnant women to avoid triclosan.
‘They should absolutely avoid anything with triclosan listed in its ingredients,’ she said.
‘We don’t all need to be using anti-bacterial soaps if we wash our hands properly.
‘It has been on our radar for many years and I’m not surprised at these latest findings.’
But a spokesman for the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Perfumery Association said the study in sheep did not prove the same effects would be seen in humans.
She added: ‘Much research on human and environmental safety has been done on triclosan over the years.
‘To date, it has been shown to be safe.
‘Our industry’s number one priority is consumer safety and we work with the regulatory authorities to ensure that all new research is taken into consideration.
‘In 2009, the Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety, an independent body of experts reporting to the EU Commission, confirmed the safety of triclosan as a cosmetic ingredient, as commonly used, at a limit of 0.3 per cent.’
Triclosan wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/infoservices/pesticidesandyou/Fall%2005/triclosan%20petition.pdf
C
environmental groups, led by Beyond Pesticides, petitioned
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
on October 25, 2005 to pull from the market widely used
household products that contain the germ fi ghting chemical
triclosan. Scientifi c studies dispute the need for the chemical
and link its widespread use to health and environmental effects
and the development of stronger bacteria that are increasingly
diffi cult to control. “The failure to regulate triclosan as the
law requires puts millions of people and the environment at
unnecessary risk to toxic effects and elevated risk to other
bacterial diseases,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of
Beyond Pesticides.
The groups are asking FDA to recognize the urgency of
the problem and expedite action to ban household triclosan
use after an FDA advisory panel found in October 2005 that
the chemical provides little benefi t for healthy consumers
but could carry environmental and public health risks. The
Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee, a group made of
scientists and experts in the fi eld, voted 11-1 that antibacterial
soaps and washes were no more effective than regular soap and
water in fi ghting infections—both work equally well.
Retired senior National Institutes for Health scientist in
microbiology and immunology, Cecil Fox, Ph.D., said, “I am
troubled that governmental review of triclosan has failed to
scrutinize the development of resistant microorganisms and the
by-product, antibiotic-resistant microbial populations, and the
transport and accumulation of triclosan residues through skin
and mucosal absorption. FDA’s failure is a national scandal.”
Triclosan is found in hundreds of common everyday products,
including deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, fabrics,
plastics and nearly half of all commercial soaps. Triclosan is
used so commonly that it has made its way into the human
body, with studies showing residues in the umbilical cord blood
of infants and in breast milk of mothers. A growing body of
research fi nds that triclosan promotes the emergence of bacteria
that are resistant to antibiotics and antibacterial cleaners.
Triclosan has also been linked to the formation of dioxin, a
highly toxic, carcinogenic substance included in the United
Nation’s list of twelve persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and
the formation of chloroform, which is classifi ed by EPA as a
probable human carcinogen
The petition points out that the household use of triclosan
results in contamination of the nation’s waterways. Triclosan is
among the most prevalent contaminants not removed by typical
wastewater treatment plants, and is commonly detected in
streams and other waterways. This creates the conditions that
could lead to the formation of dioxin. William Arnold, Ph.D.
iting health concerns, a coalition of public health and Groups Ask FDA To Ban Antibacterial
Products Containing Triclosan
By Aviva Glaser
Associate Professor, University of Minnesota, Department
of Civil Engineering, explains, “Upon triclosan exposure to
sunlight, two of the products generated are 2,8-diclorodibenzodioxin
and 2,4-dichlorophenol. If triclosan was exposed
to chlorine (from water treatment) and then sunlight, there
is the potential for more highly chlorinated products to be
produced.”
“With enormous medical concern about antibiotic resistant
disease, doctors will tell you that nothing beats good old soap
and water,” said Michael Green, Executive Director of the Center
for Environmental Health. “FDA’s inaction on triclosan is
short-sighted; the agency needs to take a longer view towards
protecting public health and the environment.”
The petitioners include Beyond Pesticides, Center for
Environmental Health, Advocates for Environmental Human
Rights, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Breast Cancer
Action, Breast Cancer Fund, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics,
Citizens Environmental Coalition, Environmental Health
Fund, Indigenous Environmental Network, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Maryland Pesticide Network, Northwest
Indiana Toxics Action Project, San Diego Oceans Foundation,
Women’s Voices for the Earth, and the organic retailer Seventh
Generation, Inc.
For more information, contact Beyond Pesticides and see the
ChemWatch factsheet and article in the Fall and Winter 2004
issues of
is also available at
Pesticides and You. The full petition and press releasewww.beyondpesticides.org. Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
Page 18 Pesticides and You Vol. 25, No. 3, 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment